Crocodile Apologies

Just read a couple of your posts about educational reform. I'm wondering if my plan would find favor with you.

My plan is that the parents of school aged children have to finance everything about education and I, with no children in school, would not have to pay a cent.

This would mean that the parents of school age children would have to pay for the education of teachers,as well as their salaries, the building and renovation of schools and that part of college campuses dedicated to teaching teachers.

Is that something like you have in mind?

Welcome, and thanks for your comments! Please feel free to visit often and post your comments.

Since I can't tell if your comments are tongue-in-cheek or literal, I will assume the latter.

The short answer to your question is - YES, you are responsible only for your kids' education, not your neighbors' kids. And neither you (nor anybody else) is directly responsible for the education of teachers. The analogy is that of your neighborhood grocery store - are you 'responsible' for the salaries of the people who produce food, or (for that matter) people who bag your groceries? No, it is factored into the cost of the product.

A for-profit school would write the following profit-and-loss statement:

Revenue (aggregate of tuition collected)
Expenses
- Salaries
+ teachers
+ administrators
+ other staff
- Mortgage/rent (buildings and other property)
- Insurance
- Annual license fees for educational material
- Expenses for extra-curricular programs
- misc
Profit = Revenue - Expenses

Once we get over the concept that 'for-profit' is anathema in the field of education, it is just another important service that we rely upon. In fact, by bringing market factors back into education, we will improve quality AND lower costs. All this w/out relying on extra-ordinary, superhuman qualities that we expect from educators today.

Many people cannot break their image of education being somehow 'different', requiring Govt intervention and superhuman teachers who do the impossible for next-to-nothing. Reverting to the analogy about grocery stores - and indeed the entire chain of for-profit entities that ensure our food supply. The fact that we don't have to worry too much about the quantity and the quality of our food supply is a testament to the efficacy of the free market in the area of food - an indispensable commodity, perhaps even more important to sustain life than education.

BTW, the following link (courtesy of Libertybob) shows the current costs of educating a child in YOUR state. In other posts on this blog, libertybob has shown how pvt education based on similar numbers would work quite well!

http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/pubilspending+revenue.htm

Thanks for the kind words. I do have to say, VoR, that am I not sure about the final step.

I like your idea that vouchers would make sense to implement as a step to fully privatize education.

I am also curious though as to whether or not public education is actually a good idea. Not in our current form, of course. But if we got a voucher system implemented worldwide, would we still want to fully privatize it? The libertarian in me says yes, but then I also think that fully educating everybody would lead to a more educated workforce. Higher education usually equates with higher salaries. Higher salaries usually equate with higher tax revenue. So from a purely economical point of view, government subsidies to help education make sense.. unlike farmers subsidies, etc...

I think I am wrong here... but I don't know why. Any ideas?

Libertybob,

I agree completely with the proposition that an educated public is a valuable asset to a country. In fact, it is for that reason that I want us to have the best model for it.

If we stopped at Phase 2, we would gain some of the benefit, but we would still be employing what I refer to as the 'Medicare' model. Costs would still be higher than necessary, and there would not be a mechanism to improve the efficiency of the system for those below the poverty line. In fact, we would truly have a two-tier system with all the inequality that represents.

If we stop at Phase 2, we would have only poor children (and possibly only failing teachers) in the public schools. Everyone else would be in pvt schools. I actually worry about the implied danger in a 5-yr period for Phase 2, because of our past experiences with entitlements. It may be that a 2-3yr period is better - it provides some time for the bureaucracy to reform, but not too much time for dependancy to set in.

For those who are interested in reading "A 10 year plan to fix K-12 education" about the three phase method referenced above, please click on:
http://voice.townhall.com/g/a71b80ca-d2ff-4587-a7cd-1c6c55221b55

The proposed 3-phase program would have subsidies (vouchers) for those who are below the poverty line - but it wouldn't relegate them to sub-standard schools.

If the goal is to provide quality education to those children whose parents can't pay for education, then it is met by the voucher system.

In fact, with a higher quality of education, there will be an overall reduction in the percentage of people who are below the poverty line.

Note: obviously, the existence of a high-quality education system does not by itself 'equalize' the statistical spread of IQ. (Read the book 'The Bell Curve', for more on this). I'm not suggesting that we will have some grand equalization of outcomes. However, we will have the best education system that can be attained. No more, no less.

As a result, high-quality education will be available to all - but not all will take advantage of it. A safety net will exist for the offspring of those who either lack the ability or the motivation to benfit from such a system.

Incidentally, the concept of ANY subsidy is anathema to an advocate of laissez-faire economics. However, I do not (at this time) advocate a Phase 4, that does away completely with vouchers for the poor. That is based on the fact that there IS an IQ-distribution in our population. We may not like it, but it is a reality.