Couple of things
- In what I think is a pretty good move, Jane Kidd is seeking the position of chairperson of the Georgia Democratic Party. Much of this is inside baseball, but since she's a hometown girl, good for her. Considering how ineffective the party has been under Bobby Kahn's leadership, I think this is a good change.
- Just note ... headline reads 'Phyllis Diller full of laughs at 89' ... it's funny to me for some reason.
- Considering I'm more of a 'ends' guy rather than 'means' guy, I want to see our educational system improve just like anyone, but I agree with the Athens Banner-Herald editorial staff on this one. Sticking a voucher system in a costume and calling it something else doesn't change what it is ... a voucher system. I've got plenty of reasons why I don't think such a system would do anything to make the current state of education in the state better, but I'm particularly bothered by the PR move to simply change the packaging to make the package appear to be better.
- Here's some clarification on my part regarding three-laning Prince Avenue.
- I talked about this before, but I think something really positive came come from the challenge to the ban on patio smoking. The law, as currently written, is terribly confusing and the outcome of this, regardless of what it is, can go a long way in giving law enforcement officials a better idea of how to do their job. What do I think? Well, I think if you're not inside the building, you oughta be able to smoke.
- In light of the Christmas season, I take my first look at a worthy non-profit - Carolina for Kiberia.
- Russ acknowledges that he's getting old ... and the fact it came at a Deftones concert makes it funnier to me.
- Just note ... headline reads 'Phyllis Diller full of laughs at 89' ... it's funny to me for some reason.
- Considering I'm more of a 'ends' guy rather than 'means' guy, I want to see our educational system improve just like anyone, but I agree with the Athens Banner-Herald editorial staff on this one. Sticking a voucher system in a costume and calling it something else doesn't change what it is ... a voucher system. I've got plenty of reasons why I don't think such a system would do anything to make the current state of education in the state better, but I'm particularly bothered by the PR move to simply change the packaging to make the package appear to be better.
- Here's some clarification on my part regarding three-laning Prince Avenue.
- I talked about this before, but I think something really positive came come from the challenge to the ban on patio smoking. The law, as currently written, is terribly confusing and the outcome of this, regardless of what it is, can go a long way in giving law enforcement officials a better idea of how to do their job. What do I think? Well, I think if you're not inside the building, you oughta be able to smoke.
- In light of the Christmas season, I take my first look at a worthy non-profit - Carolina for Kiberia.
- Russ acknowledges that he's getting old ... and the fact it came at a Deftones concert makes it funnier to me.
posted by Jmac at 7:20 AM
18 Comments:
Re: the backdoor voucher bill, I'm just curious what you would say, JMac, if the bill did clearly define the disabilities that were covered by the bill, and if that definition lined up to what most people think of as genuine disabilities.
In other words, suppose that the bill wasn't "cynical" and actually was just a "voucher for special-needs kids" bill (with not loosey-goosey definitions of "special needs"). Would you support it under those circumstances?
I hate to say something like 'I'd need more information' but, well, 'I'd need more information.'
You and I have discussed vouchers before, so you're familiar with many of my objections and concerns over them, and I think a lot of those would apply here (i.e. diverting of public school funds, admission policies at private schools, fees at private schools, quality of education, etc. and etc.).
I'd have to take a closer look to see what this particular bill really calls for and then apply your conditions to it. My initial bet is I'd still be hesistant to back it.
In other words, suppose that the bill wasn't "cynical" and actually was just a "voucher for special-needs kids" bill (with not loosey-goosey definitions of "special needs"). Would you support it under those circumstances?
Why would it be necessary? I would assume that, in general, the public school system has far greater resources for assisting students with disabilities than most private schools do.
"I would assume that, in general, the public school system has far greater resources for assisting students with disabilities than most private schools do."
I've been told exactly this by parents with special needs children in Clarke County.
Perhaps the idea is to divert said resources to private schools?
Darren
That's true as well from what I hear. I know of a couple of private schools in this area which have directly told the parents they don't have the resources and personnel to specifically handle the needs of the special needs children, and that the public school systems can handle them much better.
In fact, from what I can understand, assisting special needs students is one of the things public school systems seem to do rather well.
There are private schools or institutions or what-have-you that specialize in various people with special needs. There's a famous school for autistic kids in Atlanta, for instance.
If your choice is between Clarke County public schools and St. Alban's School for Elite White People, then of course the public school probably has more resources for special-needs kids. But this is just because the public school has any funds set aside for this at all, whereas St. Alban's is not intended to do that sort of thing.
But if you compare a public school to a private school that is designed for the purpose of helping certain special-needs kids, then I'll bet the private option is better. 60% of the time every time, or whatever.
Of course, there might not be a lot of these private schools that deliberately cater to special needs right now. But there could be, and in some places they exist.
Why not give parents with Autistic kids in, say, Atlanta, the choice of which school they think is best for their child? That is, why not give them a choice that is actually choosable for them, rather than taxing their property to fund the public school, and then refusing to give them any help if they want to spend extra money on top that to send their child someplace else. Which lots of parents can't afford to do, of course. Hence why I say they have no "choice." Choice in that practical sense of actually being able to make the choice.
(And, of course, I'm a wierd person who would actually refuse to accept voucher money if I ran a private school. So this really is more hypothetical for me as well...)
xon: Why not give parents with Autistic kids in, say, Atlanta, the choice of which school they think is best for their child?
Because this isn't about kids with disabilities. Sen. Eric Johnson has never shown an interest in kids with disabilities until he can use them as a trojan horse to destroy our public school system.
Bo's a little more direct than me, but I think that's namely it right there. But, of course, this is referring specifically to this bill and Johnson's intention. While I don't necessarily agree that Johnson doesn't care about kids with disabilities, I do think this is a politically friendly issue in which he can advance a position he supports, which is vouchers.
Part of my problem with this voucher system, which I think is actually something you'd have a problem with as well, is that it gives the false impression of creating opportunity. That is, even if voucher money is doled out to the needy families, it isn't a guarantee said children get admission into the private school of their choice.
And, understanding how private schools and institutions work, that's understandable. I wouldn't want to impose requirements on a private entity to tell them who they should take and shouldn't take ... if they're not receiving public assistance for admission.
I would suspect that, if they did, you would be (understandably) concerned about governmental overreach into a private institution.
Why not give parents with Autistic kids in, say, Atlanta, the choice of which school they think is best for their child? That is, why not give them a choice that is actually choosable for them, rather than taxing their property to fund the public school, and then refusing to give them any help if they want to spend extra money on top that to send their child someplace else. Which lots of parents can't afford to do, of course. Hence why I say they have no "choice." Choice in that practical sense of actually being able to make the choice.
They can't apply for a scholarship?
That's what I do not understand about the voucher argument.
If the argument is that this is creating free choice, rather than state monopolies of education, then why prop up the market through state subsidies? I think that's where you were going, Xon, in suggesting that people "could" go to these institutions, in the sense that if the people were given the means to afford tailored institutions, then the market will supply them with the fulfillment of their desires.
But then it's the state that is still paying and supporting the market, so I'm not sure just how far a consistent emphasis on choice here will be. And precisely for the reason why you and the classical Christian schools won't accept vouchers: state entanglement.
It's a curious argument to advance, dude, given your other, stronger principles. Unless you're just drawing out Johnathan's and other's thoughts as to why they are against the proposal.
Charles, a voucher is effectively a "tax cut", not a state "subsidy". The state taxes our property to fund the schools. Vouchers are giving some of that money back.
It's only a subsidy if getting a refund when you are over-charged for something at the store is a "subsidy."
Emmanuel Lewis:"Hey, you charged me for two of these, but I only got one."
Gary Coleman:"I'm sorry, sir, we don't do subsidies here."
EL: "But I need that extra eight dollars to buy lunch!"
GC: "Sorry, dude. Like I said, we don't do subsidies. We're not about to prop up Panera by giving you the money to eat there. If you want to eat there, then make your decision to eat there under free market conditions, don't ask us for help."
The 'free market', by definition cannot be subsidized by the state. Anytime the state is exercising control over some resource, the free market is 'corrupted' regarding that same resource.
Think of it this way: If I pay 5,000 a year in property taxes to fund the public schools, then that is 5k less I have in my pocket to spend on other schools. Other things like the private school I'd rather send my kids too. The market conditions are affected by the property tax, because it now takes more income for people to be able to afford to send their kids to private schools. (You have to overcome the 5k that was already drained to go to the gov't school).
Suppose there is a family out there that, on their current budget, can afford to spend 4k per year of their after-tax for their child's education. The cheapest private school in their area is 5k, so they choose (reluctantly) to stick with the gubmint school. But, if they were not being taxed that 5k on their property (whether this is refunded via a voucher, or simply through an abolition of the property tax altogether), then they would have 5k extra after-tax income to spend on private school. Hence, ceteris paribus, more parents would be able to make use of private schools.
Vouchers are certainly not a "high water mark" for educational policy as far as I'm concerned. And you are right to point out that the educational organization with which I have been involved refuses to accept voucher money, a policy I wholeheartedly support. I am, as you say, trying to draw out the particulars of the opposition to this voucher program without enthusiastically supporting it myself.
By your reasoning, Charles, the state is always "subsidizing" or controlling private schools. It is doing this whether it gives parents vouchers or not. I mean, in one sense the "entanglement" issue can come up no matter what. If the right (wrong) regime comes into power with enough popular support, it could decide to start heavily regulating private schools, whether they take voucher money or not. Perhaps it would lose in the courts, but only if the courts are open to proper reason. The threat of state "entanglement" is always there, given the power and ubiquitousness of the state. But not all entanglements are created equal. We should avoid such things, in as much as it is up to us.
But there's some faultiness in that particular argument you offer there (which you even concede isn't necessarily your own). It's easy to say 'OK, give me the X amount of money I spend that goes toward schools and I'll use that as a voucher' but it doesn't translate into real world practice.
What I mean by that is, as I'm sure you understand, taxation brings in a variety of funds which go to a variety of expenses. So property taxes don't simply go strictly to education. For instance, here in Athens-Clarke County they fund a large portion of many other expenditures we have.
As a result, it isn't feasible to say 'give me back the percentage you spend on X or Y so I can spend it better' because our taxes don't go into nice, neat piles of money. It's complex and messy (and, to be sure, I'd acknowledge this would another criticism you may have). Citizens, outside of, say, SPLOST, don't get to pick or choose what the government spends their taxes on.
Rather, we elect representatives we trust and share our common vision to execute said vision. We don't get to say 'divert 12 percent of my income tax away from the War in Iraq because I don't support it and funnel it toward alternative energy research.'
I suppose my point in this is that rather than develop some bizzarre tax refund system which doesn't match the realities of the actual system, it would make more sense if the advocates for vouchers, or, say, private education, developed a more coherent vision of opening all of education to the free market.
Now, the reasons are legion why I'd strongly oppose such a system, but it seems to me to be a more consistent and logical argument than simply saying 'give me my money back 'cause I don't like that.' Plus it would be a bigger picture debate, which I think often lack in this country.
"Now, the reasons are legion why I'd strongly oppose such a system, but it seems to me to be a more consistent and logical argument than simply saying 'give me my money back 'cause I don't like that.' Plus it would be a bigger picture debate, which I think often lack in this country."
Yes, but as you yourself just emphasized, real world politics is messy and complex. You can't normally move seamlessly into a comprehensive reform (I mean, good generally-reasonable people like JMac would oppose such reform for a legion of reasons!). You can't privatize all gov't schools overnight. Vouchers, pretty clearly, are an attempt by school libertarians to move closer to the free market approach. They are trying to live in the messy complex world, rather than turning it over to their own utopian fantasies all at once. They're doing the same thing you often laud in politics, JMac, except that in their case you are chastising them for being "inconsistent."
Yes, I think the voucherites are misguided, because I do think there are problems of entanglement that private schools will find it hard to avoid once they go down that road. But I also think the voucheristas have their hearts in the right place.
As to the idea that we cannot just pick how all of our tax money is spent, I agree. But we do know about how much money we spend per kid in government schools, and so it seems reasonable to simply refund at least a significant portion of that (It doesn't really matter to me whether gov't schools are actually funded by property taxes exclusively or not, the point is that they are funded by taxes of some sort. Property taxes is just the general way it works in most places, and is a useful shorthand to refer to this system.)
Or, I should say, I know why voucherists think it sounds reasonable. Though I do think they are a bit misguided in that.
Think of it this way: the government schools spend a certain amount of money out of the public fund. This money has some sort of fairly clear purpose, to help form a well-educated citizenry. Well, that could happen better under freer market conditions, acc. to school-state separationists. So take that same money that gov't is already spending on the current system, and spend it differently. Spend it in such a way as to open up market operations, and get out of the business of running schools.
Jmac,
Eric Johnson posted about the voucher bill on Peach Pundit yesterday, and there's a conversation burgeoning there. Be forewarned though... Peach Pundit is notorious for not being the most, erm, civil place to have a conversation.
They're doing the same thing you often laud in politics, JMac, except that in their case you are chastising them for being "inconsistent."
I don't necessarily know if it's the same thing though. I'm all for compromise, but the point of compromise is to set up a workable system where both sides achieve some modicum of success and everyone benefits. It's dependent on both sides honoring their promise to 'meet in the middle.'
What you imply isn't particularly honest as it would be under the guise of 'compromise' but in actuality be a move to simply seize power in the debate. In other words, if you don't mean to honor the compromise but instead see it merely as a step to achieving the total victory of your argument, that's wrong.
And that's what I interpret, and you concede, the case to be for those who support vouchers. Which is why I offered, instead, that a more appropriate way for those who are ardent voucher defenders to get their way was to take on a 'big picture argument.'
As for your strict allegiance to the free market can solve all ills ... I continue to laugh and mock you a la that scene in one of those Monty Python movies. :)
Actually I don't think the free market can solve all ills at all.
The free market kicks in on murder for hire, child prostitution, and reality shows just like it does for school choice. The difference is that I find those first three things to be toxic to the moral character of society, whereas children receiving better educations than they currently receive strikes me as a good think.
I meant "thing", not "think," daah-link.
Post a Comment
<< Home