$50,000 is more than than teachers make here. And remember that it's a baseline number and school systems would have to implement certain things like supplemental pay for performance, experience, and special qualifications. Relieved of the need to fund base salaries and faced with competition from other systems, I'm guessing most schools would come up with pretty lucrative plans for top performers.

(03-12-2009 01:33 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I favor is starting with vouchers for public schools (including magnets/charters) and tying it to increased funding for teachers' salaries to get them on board. Say, give each student a $3000 voucher that HAS to be spent $2500 on classroom teacher salary and $500 on supplies. Require the school district to meet some requirements to be eligible, including some augmentation of salaries (that could be merit-based). Any teacher who teaches 20 students for a full day would make a minimum of $50,000 and have $10,000 to spend on teaching supplies.

$50K isn't really alot, so that's not the complete driver for better teachers.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layou...00011.html

http://www.aft.org/salary/2004/download/...vey-PA.pdf

(03-12-2009 12:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Again, I favor vouchers, but my hope is largely that public schools will be more attentive to students', parents' and communities' needs, and less able to further their institutional agendas.

I think vouchers may be the only way to give parents enough control to make this happen.

(03-12-2009 12:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Aside from stating in general that I'm offended by the tone of your response, you really have to explain what the hell you're talking about here. Specifically what line of reasoning are you talking about. I don't see my claim that there would be some fraud as dramatically different than Ronald Reagan's "welfare moms".
If you're attributing to me a claim that the public school system is necessarily better than a private school system, well please show me where I've made anything like such a claim.

Whoa, easy.

I'm mystified as to how my "tone" could have offended. I'm a bit offended by your tone, for that matter. But as one who laments regularly that posters on here spend too much time in personal attacks and too little discussing the issues, I'm guessing that we should both forgive and forget and see if there is productive discussion to be had about issues.

My only assumption about your line of reasoning was that you disagreed with my opinion that parents would generally make better decisions than bureaucrats. Since the exchange started with my stating that opinion, to which you responded by stating your expectation that a subset of kids would get locked in the closet so their parents could pocket the voucher money, I thought that was a reasonable inference. If that inference was incorrect, I apologize.

I'm not saying there'd be no fraud in a private school voucher program. But I see no compelling reason why there would be more than there is now; I would expect less rather than more. And no, I'm not attributing to you any claim of public school superiority. Your other comments make it clear that you know that's a false claim.

If you are offended by my low regard for bureaucrats, I'm sorry. But ater 40 years, working with probably 500-1000 different bureaucrats in probably 50 different federal, state, and local government agencies, they have earned that low regard.

Past that, I'm at a loss to understand your problem.

(03-12-2009 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 12:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Are you kidding? Funneling public monies to private institutions is immune to fraud?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...37e45.html
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig...32006.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...01352.html

Important to note that these are basically public schools who defrauded the Federal Government by "making up" students. If the voucher is given to parents instead, then they would have to be complicit... which makes fraud tougher, especially in that the individual amounts are smaller... though not impossible...

Charter schools are a mix of schools that are public, private non-profit and private for-profit, but all are publicly funded. I didn't research whether these individual schools fall into one bucket or the other, but it really doesn't matter.

(03-12-2009 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

I45Owl Wrote:

(03-12-2009 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, isn't it a bigger problem that a rather large subset of kids is trapped in an education system that offers them little hope, and from which they cannot escape?

Provided that you can demonstrate that the situation for that rather large subset of kids would be improved. But, you're advocating a system that would spend over $300 billion based on the assertion that things would be better and an expressed disregard for any kind of evidence one way or the other.

If I understand things correctly, it would only redirect $300byn already being spent, not create $300byn in new spending. As for evidence... I don't think there is any doubt that private schools... not charter schools, but private schools do a better job of educating our youth. Ask any college admissions director. I've been told that some schools are worth as many as 2 points of GPA (on just a 5 point scale) over their public school counterparts... and because vouchers provide choices, as opposed to simply "alternatives"... the people directly affected by the educational opportunities get to make a choice.

Yes, in theory you're redirecting that amount of funding. I have heard the opposite about private schools as well.

There are two rebuttals I'll make to what your anecdotes.

First, any school (or any coach by way of comparison) has a vested interest in saying that the school that you came for was crap and we're so much better that you'll have to work really hard to get up to our level, especially when they're charging you for attendance.

Second, I'll assert that every school that has a large percentage of kids who are high achievers will wind up with well qualified students. That's why there were so many kids at Rice that went to high school in Los Alamos, NM. The numbers for kids that attend high $$ private schools are going to be good for the same reason. The public high school that I went to in Denver should be counted 2 points ahead of most other schools as well.

The question with regards to public policy and public monies should be whether public or private schools are more cost effective.

(03-12-2009 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I-45, to be fair... it is YOU who has implied that vouchers are simply an attempt to fund religious schools... or for white kids to get away from black ones... Honestly, those are ficticious claims not supported by the evidence and much more insulting than anything 69/70 might have implied.

I do recall saying that there were two primary constituencies advocating school vouchers - religious and libertarian. I don't think you will find people openly advocating school vouchers as a method of segregation today, but interestingly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_vouchers#History Wrote:School vouchers were used in the 1960s after school integration by some Southern states in the U.S. as a method of perpetuating segregation. In a few instances, public schools were closed outright and vouchers were issued to parents. The vouchers, in many cases, were only good at privately segregated schools, known as segregation academies.

The libertarian perspective is mostly what's been advocated here, and provides the basis for the system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_vouchers#History Wrote:Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman argued for the modern concept of vouchers in the 1950s, stating that competition would improve schools and cost efficiency. The view further gained popularity with the 1980 TV broadcast of Friedman's series "Free to Choose" for which volume 6 was devoted entirely to promoting "educational freedom" through programs like school vouchers.[2] Vouchers have since been introduced in countries all over the world but are controversial as they reflect political and ideological splits as well as limiting the role of unions in education.

In looking for links to support the religious aspect of school choice, I think I've found that I may have greatly overestimated its importance - primarily for these reasons:

1. Advocacy groups from secularists to the ADL play this aspect very strongly
2. Experience in following the issues of church-state separation for a long time have left me with the impression that the primary movers are Evangelicals unhappy with church-state separation
3. My baseless and apparently false assumption that one of the primary funders of voucher proposals - Patrick Byrne - did so for religious reasons (based on the fact that he's from Utah), whereas it appears he's a staunch Libertarian
4. School voucher programs in Cleveland (and presumably elsewhere) have been challenged and/or quashed by church-state litigation
   

Catholic Leaders Lobby for School Vouchers in N.J.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/ed...ed0315.htm Wrote:Ultimately, however, the Catholic community alone may not be able to solve its schools’ problems. “It’s an open question whether inner-city Catholic schools are viable without vouchers or other forms of government aid,” acknowledges Guerra. The consortium schools, it’s important to note, received a substantial financial boost in 2004, when Congress passed a limited school-voucher bill for the District of Columbia. The bill allowed 400 poor students from failing D.C. public schools to transfer into the consortium schools, with vouchers paying full tuition.

(03-12-2009 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Additionally, you've failed to produce evidence that the removal of students to alternative schools of their choice... and the opportunity for literally EVERY student, regardless of race, creed or color to get the "free to them" education offered by the state, or the "free to them" $7,500 education supplied through the voucher is worse than the current system.

I don't believe I've made that argument, so I don't see why I have a burden of supplying evidence for it.

(03-12-2009 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Whoa, easy.

I'm mystified as to how my "tone" could have offended.

First, you said point blank "One, you don't understand the voucher system." It's not that complicated. Second, you've equated my thinking with Soviet Russia. Them's fighting words, and I fully admit to seeing red whilst posting. I should have just asked for clarification

(03-12-2009 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm a bit offended by your tone, for that matter. But as one who laments regularly that posters on here spend too much time in personal attacks and too little discussing the issues, I'm guessing that we should both forgive and forget and see if there is productive discussion to be had about issues.

Agreed.

You've made an excellent point about trusting parents. I did get off into untenable territory with some of my comments.

Some interesting resources and arguments:
Are Private High Schools Better Academically Than Public High Schools?
School Voucher Programs: What the Research Says About Parental School Choice
Q and A: Overstock.com Founder Patrick Byrne

Patrick Byrne Wrote:Milton Friedman always said a socialist product could do two of the three following things: Be expensive, be low in quality, and harm the poor. Education in the United States is pulling the trifecta. The people who are bearing the brunt of this right now are minorities, who are becoming increasingly vocal in their desire for school choice.

note: sorry for the delay ... I had wanted to get the Friedman quote in before I posted

Thanks for clearing the air a bit.

My comment about your understanding of vouchers was based on your comment about parents locking kids in closets and pocketing the cash. That can't really happen because the voucher isn't cash. The only place you can exchange it is at a school. I suppose you could have some extensive collusion with the school where they got the voucher and kicked back some cash to you, but that would be a very risky scheme. There are easier ways to steal. I gather from subsequent posts that the lock 'em in the closet comment was probably hyperbole to make a point.

As for the Soviet reference, that wasn't meant personally, What I actually equated to the Soviets was bureaucrats. I think that's an apt comparison.

(03-13-2009 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My comment about your understanding of vouchers was based on your comment about parents locking kids in closets and pocketing the cash. That can't really happen because the voucher isn't cash. The only place you can exchange it is at a school. I suppose you could have some extensive collusion with the school where they got the voucher and kicked back some cash to you, but that would be a very risky scheme. There are easier ways to steal. I gather from subsequent posts that the lock 'em in the closet comment was probably hyperbole to make a point.

As for the Soviet reference, that wasn't meant personally, What I actually equated to the Soviets was bureaucrats. I think that's an apt comparison.

Yeah. One thing I've learned from my wife is to try to talk about "feelings" rather than lashing out. More often, I guess I do both (or just the latter).

(03-13-2009 08:43 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Second, you've equated my thinking with Soviet Russia. Them's fighting words, and I fully admit to seeing red whilst posting.

It occurs after reading this that there's an unintended irony to my word choice, even if I misinterpreted the target of your comment.

(03-12-2009 06:34 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

I45Owl Wrote:

(03-12-2009 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, isn't it a bigger problem that a rather large subset of kids is trapped in an education system that offers them little hope, and from which they cannot escape?

Provided that you can demonstrate that the situation for that rather large subset of kids would be improved. But, you're advocating a system that would spend over $300 billion based on the assertion that things would be better and an expressed disregard for any kind of evidence one way or the other.

If I understand things correctly, it would only redirect $300byn already being spent, not create $300byn in new spending. As for evidence... I don't think there is any doubt that private schools... not charter schools, but private schools do a better job of educating our youth. Ask any college admissions director. I've been told that some schools are worth as many as 2 points of GPA (on just a 5 point scale) over their public school counterparts... and because vouchers provide choices, as opposed to simply "alternatives"... the people directly affected by the educational opportunities get to make a choice.

Yes, in theory you're redirecting that amount of funding. I have heard the opposite about private schools as well.

There are two rebuttals I'll make to what your anecdotes.

First, any school (or any coach by way of comparison) has a vested interest in saying that the school that you came for was crap and we're so much better that you'll have to work really hard to get up to our level, especially when they're charging you for attendance.

Second, I'll assert that every school that has a large percentage of kids who are high achievers will wind up with well qualified students. That's why there were so many kids at Rice that went to high school in Los Alamos, NM. The numbers for kids that attend high $$ private schools are going to be good for the same reason. The public high school that I went to in Denver should be counted 2 points ahead of most other schools as well.

The question with regards to public policy and public monies should be whether public or private schools are more cost effective.

The opposite? not following... you mean that some private schools are worth LESS than their public alternatives? I'm certain its possible... but if that is the case, then why are people PAYING for a worse product than they can have for free? Now, if your asserting that Fairfax County Public schools are better than many Bug-tussle USA private schools... that's fine.... but Fairfax County Schools aren't an option for the people in Bug-tussle.

to your first point... that isn't what was said. What was said was, when talking to a college admissions director in Texas... a state where the top 10% of a school... regardless of how poor the school is... is guaranteed admission to state schools... and considering whether or not to accept admission for my son at a Private School... I asked if having a 5.0 at Bellaire High School (one of the better public schools in the state) was better than having a 4.0 at Kinkaid High School (one of the better private schools)... and I was told that while the bump for Kinkaid over Bellaire was not as much as MANY HISD schools, there was a meaningful bump.... and that for some schools in HISD and neighboring districts, the bump was as much as 2 points. Meaning getting straight B's in regular classes at Kinkaid was equivalent in their minds to getting Straight A's in all honors classes at some Public schools in or near Houston.

This had nothing to do with "selling" me anything.

as to point 2, if you believe that your school district is fine, then I would agree that most people who chose alternative schooling do so on the basis of something OTHER than education... but I think it's a pretty well established fact that MOST school districts are failing our kids... and that MOST private schools are better than their public alternatives in their location... so you are in the minority.

Quote:

(03-12-2009 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I-45, to be fair... it is YOU who has implied that vouchers are simply an attempt to fund religious schools... or for white kids to get away from black ones... Honestly, those are ficticious claims not supported by the evidence and much more insulting than anything 69/70 might have implied.

I do recall saying that there were two primary constituencies advocating school vouchers - religious and libertarian. I don't think you will find people openly advocating school vouchers as a method of segregation today, but interestingly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_vouchers#History Wrote:School vouchers were used in the 1960s after school integration by some Southern states in the U.S. as a method of perpetuating segregation. In a few instances, public schools were closed outright and vouchers were issued to parents. The vouchers, in many cases, were only good at privately segregated schools, known as segregation academies.

The libertarian perspective is mostly what's been advocated here, and provides the basis for the system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_vouchers#History Wrote:Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman argued for the modern concept of vouchers in the 1950s, stating that competition would improve schools and cost efficiency. The view further gained popularity with the 1980 TV broadcast of Friedman's series "Free to Choose" for which volume 6 was devoted entirely to promoting "educational freedom" through programs like school vouchers.[2] Vouchers have since been introduced in countries all over the world but are controversial as they reflect political and ideological splits as well as limiting the role of unions in education.

In looking for links to support the religious aspect of school choice, I think I've found that I may have greatly overestimated its importance - primarily for these reasons:

1. Advocacy groups from secularists to the ADL play this aspect very strongly
2. Experience in following the issues of church-state separation for a long time have left me with the impression that the primary movers are Evangelicals unhappy with church-state separation
3. My baseless and apparently false assumption that one of the primary funders of voucher proposals - Patrick Byrne - did so for religious reasons (based on the fact that he's from Utah), whereas it appears he's a staunch Libertarian
4. School voucher programs in Cleveland (and presumably elsewhere) have been challenged and/or quashed by church-state litigation
   

Catholic Leaders Lobby for School Vouchers in N.J.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/ed...ed0315.htm Wrote:Ultimately, however, the Catholic community alone may not be able to solve its schools’ problems. “It’s an open question whether inner-city Catholic schools are viable without vouchers or other forms of government aid,” acknowledges Guerra. The consortium schools, it’s important to note, received a substantial financial boost in 2004, when Congress passed a limited school-voucher bill for the District of Columbia. The bill allowed 400 poor students from failing D.C. public schools to transfer into the consortium schools, with vouchers paying full tuition.

I think enough things have changed since 1960 that we don't need to assume that the reasons for what happened then apply to even a significant minority today... and while the Catholic Community certainly has an interest in their schools... and would be supportive of vouchers... it is clear from THIS comment that they aren't discriminating... and though they have mass etc... I doubt if those 400 families are all Catholic.

More important... The church offers you a 3 course meal, but you have to wear a tie they give you and listen to a sermon while you eat. The state offers you a cheese sandwich, but you don't have to wear a tie or listen to a sermon... though a politician may stick their head in for a photo op... You choose. Either way, you're not starving. I fail to see how offering you a choice hurts you... even if the choice comes with strings.

Quote:

(03-12-2009 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Additionally, you've failed to produce evidence that the removal of students to alternative schools of their choice... and the opportunity for literally EVERY student, regardless of race, creed or color to get the "free to them" education offered by the state, or the "free to them" $7,500 education supplied through the voucher is worse than the current system.

I don't believe I've made that argument, so I don't see why I have a burden of supplying evidence for it.

You said that you'd agree with vouchers "Provided that you can demonstrate that the situation for that rather large subset of kids would be improved." My alternative to that is because I am only "generally" redirecting funds, rather than spending new money... I only need to demonstrate that I can improve ONE child's situation for it to be worthwhile... and I believe you'd agree that vouchers could help ONE student... because there is little evidence to suggest that the quality of education for those who choose NOT to use the voucher would be lessened.

I still go back to your own example. Only a few of the schools you visited in Dallas offer (in your mind) a superior education to your free choice.... and they are too expensive, and others may be reasonably priced, but not (again in your opinion) worth the differential. Obviously, many other people came to different conclusions for a variety of reasons. You focus on the increase in demand that would be caused by the availability of vouchers and assume a dollar for dollar increase in cost... which is unlikely, but fail to recognize the increase in quality or supply that would also result. You may not change your mind, but clearly others might... because they've already looked at the same choices you did, and made different decisions.

MY point is that if you establish a voucher as being worth $7,500... that a significant number of alternative schools with a price point of $7,500 will appear. If enough people don't generally agree that a particular school is worth $7,500, then that school will go under...

I don't know where the money for those DC vouchers came from... so its not a fair question... but the school in DC existed before the vouchers. The choice for those 400 families did not. Obviously those families believe they are better off with the voucher... and the school certainly doesn't seem to mind. I'm looking for evidence of harm to others because the evidence of "good" is so obvious. If the DC Public school system was harmed, then the voucher wasn't priced correctly....

Every time i hear of a charter school or private school that fails, I am sad for the kids that made the choice to attend that school... however, as their alternative to the charter or private school is the same public school they would have gone to had they not been offered the choice in the first place, they REALLY aren't harmed.

(03-13-2009 11:31 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 06:34 PM)I45owl Wrote:  There are two rebuttals I'll make to what your anecdotes.

First, any school (or any coach by way of comparison) has a vested interest in saying that the school that you came for was crap and we're so much better that you'll have to work really hard to get up to our level, especially when they're charging you for attendance.

Second, I'll assert that every school that has a large percentage of kids who are high achievers will wind up with well qualified students. That's why there were so many kids at Rice that went to high school in Los Alamos, NM. The numbers for kids that attend high $$ private schools are going to be good for the same reason. The public high school that I went to in Denver should be counted 2 points ahead of most other schools as well.

The question with regards to public policy and public monies should be whether public or private schools are more cost effective.

The opposite? not following... you mean that some private schools are worth LESS than their public alternatives? I'm certain its possible... but if that is the case, then why are people PAYING for a worse product than they can have for free? Now, if your asserting that Fairfax County Public schools are better than many Bug-tussle USA private schools... that's fine.... but Fairfax County Schools aren't an option for the people in Bug-tussle.

to your first point... that isn't what was said. What was said was, when talking to a college admissions director in Texas... a state where the top 10% of a school... regardless of how poor the school is... is guaranteed admission to state schools... and considering whether or not to accept admission for my son at a Private School... I asked if having a 5.0 at Bellaire High School (one of the better public schools in the state) was better than having a 4.0 at Kinkaid High School (one of the better private schools)... and I was told that while the bump for Kinkaid over Bellaire was not as much as MANY HISD schools, there was a meaningful bump.... and that for some schools in HISD and neighboring districts, the bump was as much as 2 points. Meaning getting straight B's in regular classes at Kinkaid was equivalent in their minds to getting Straight A's in all honors classes at some Public schools in or near Houston.

This had nothing to do with "selling" me anything.

I had lost the relevant portion of your original post for this first point due to my editing and the complexity of nesting all of the comments and such. What I was referring to was:

Hambone10 Wrote:A friend of my son's was a straight-A student in middle school taking honors Algebra and Spanish, but was required to repeat them in private high school because he couldn't score well enough to pass the entrance exam... and according to his parents... worked MUCH harder, but still struggled in the "regular" classes... much less honors to get low b's.

Even your response doesn't even touch on how well the schools actually do in educating the kids. It is the rough equivalent of saying "would my child have a better chance of acceptance if he gets a 1700 on the SATs when tested amongst peer group A or a 31 on the ACT when tested amongst peer group B" (disregarding whether the numbers actually make sense). There are a number of factors that come into play that have nothing to do with how well the school actually does at educating the kids. Among which are that the school may stand to benefit in terms of future donations if they take the rich folks kid.

I don't want to completely discount measures like the "admissions director", but those kind of measures aren't really what we should be going by. If you argue that your son is more likely to get into UT by going to Kinkaid, then fine - send him there on you're own dime. If you argue that your son will be educated better going to Kinkaid than he would going to public HS, then I'm more likely to be willing to put that into public policy. But, they're different (though probably intertwined) arguments.

Private schools might be better than public schools. Then again, they might not.

What I'm certain of is that if the two have to compete, they will both get better.

(03-13-2009 01:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I had lost the relevant portion of your original post for this first point due to my editing and the complexity of nesting all of the comments and such. What I was referring to was:

Hambone10 Wrote:A friend of my son's was a straight-A student in middle school taking honors Algebra and Spanish, but was required to repeat them in private high school because he couldn't score well enough to pass the entrance exam... and according to his parents... worked MUCH harder, but still struggled in the "regular" classes... much less honors to get low b's.

Even your response doesn't even touch on how well the schools actually do in educating the kids. It is the rough equivalent of saying "would my child have a better chance of acceptance if he gets a 1700 on the SATs when tested amongst peer group A or a 31 on the ACT when tested amongst peer group B" (disregarding whether the numbers actually make sense). There are a number of factors that come into play that have nothing to do with how well the school actually does at educating the kids. Among which are that the school may stand to benefit in terms of future donations if they take the rich folks kid.

I don't want to completely discount measures like the "admissions director", but those kind of measures aren't really what we should be going by. If you argue that your son is more likely to get into UT by going to Kinkaid, then fine - send him there on you're own dime. If you argue that your son will be educated better going to Kinkaid than he would going to public HS, then I'm more likely to be willing to put that into public policy. But, they're different (though probably intertwined) arguments.

Not a problem... they are sometimes hard to follow... which is why I sometimes edit them... but that can also add to the confusion rather than clarify anything.

I believe that when you take one child and put him in "Spanish I" and he gets an A without really working hard... and then the next year, he goes to a different school... is required to take an "entrance" exam to take Spanish II and fails it... so he has to repeat "Spanish I" with all of the kids who never took Spanish in the first place... and he struggles to get a B in a course that he has already taken a variant of... I think it speaks to the quality of the education. IMO, much moreso than comparing SAT/ACT scores across different groups. While I'll admit that SATs and ACTs aren't directly comparable any more so than class comparisons from different schools... I'm talking about 1 kid... and about the GOAL of getting into college. If the admissions director of your college of choice told you a 1500 SAT = 30ACT, and you got a 1400 SAT but a 31 ACT, and you had a choice, which one would you want him to see?

Your comment about "rich kids" doesn't really fly with your own story about the kids in DC... OR with my story about the classes being harder...

The fact is that NEITHER education is free... In my specific case, and for many of those "Rich Kids"... Kinkaid doesn't charge many rich kids any more than HISD does through property taxes... the only difference is... If I don't go to Kinkaid, I don't have to pay them... but I have to pay HISD whether I attend or not. Sending "the rich kids" to private schools HELPS the poor kids... because they still get their tax dollars, but they don't have to educate them.

In your final comment, you miss my point entirely. First, while I don't claim that an admissions director is the font of all knowledge about whether or not someone is 'educated"... he IS the person charged with determining eligibility at a particular school... the somewhat esoteric question about which kid is smarter/better educated really doesn't matter if one gets into the college of their choice and the other doesn't.

Based upon (among other things... like the fact that my daughter was at Kinkaid for middle school, and was learning things in 6th grade that my son was only learning in 8th) my friends experience in transferring from public middle school to private high school (the Spanish grades) I think its likely that my son's GPA would be higher at Bellaire than at Kinkaid for the same effort... in the extreme... transferring to one of those "2 point" schools might ENSURE that he finishes in the top 10% of a weak school... and guarantee him admission to UT... while getting B's at Kinkaid will almost certainly disqualify him from being in the top 10% and thus guaranteed admission.... so while he MAY not get as good an education by getting B's in regular classes at Kinkaid (an obvious over-simplification of reality) as he would by getting A's in honors classes at Bellaire... his chances of gaining acceptance to this particular University (it wasn't UT) were virtually identical.... and should he take a few honors classes at Kinkaid, or make a few A's, his chances would be increased.

As to your last comment about public policy... I believe my son will get a better education and stand a better chance of getting into the college of his choice by going to Kinkaid. I've made my choice. I know that there are others who would make the same choice if they could afford it... and $7500 would make a difference. they may not choose Kinkaid... for a variety of reasons... but they would choose something other than where they are.

As to your public policy comment...

The public policy argument is not why "the public" should pay for private education... it is that if the state allocates $7,500 to educate each child... and there is an alternative source of education that you feel would benefit your child for that same cost... OR, you would be willing to supplement that $7,500 for the alternative source of education... then why should the state FORCE you into an educational system that you don't want? If your argument is that so many people would leave the public system that it couldn't support itself... even by downsizing to reflect the lower enrollment... (while alternative schools grew by an absolutely equal number) then that only proves that the public education system isn't meeting the needs of the people.

IOW... if the people are willing to vote with their children if allowed to spend "their" school dollars as they see fit... why should the government force them into the public system?

(03-13-2009 03:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Private schools might be better than public schools. Then again, they might not.

What I'm certain of is that if the two have to compete, they will both get better.

There is no competition. Public schools are a coercive monopoly. Private schools can never compete with them because of their ability to steal to fund their activities. We really have no idea what education is really worth in the free market since there can be no competition.

Quote:AZ Gov. @DougDucey
is poised to sign the first universal school choice legislation in the nation, which will give every family in Arizona $7,000 per child to attend any school of their choice.

Every red state in the country should follow his lead.

[Image]

5:32 PM · Jun 25, 2022

link: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2r/b...b2853p.pdf

I'd say "every State" in the country should follow this lead...