Most of us who recognize that the current system isn't working (and why) think vouchers may be the next step. Of course, there are a lot of folks smarter than me, and who knows what someone will think up? If education is as important as everyone says it is, it's worth doing right...don't you think?
The Soviet Model didn't work for government or business...it's not clear why some think it will best educate our children. Monopolies don't work; especially, government monopolies don't work. Public schools today are very much like the Soviet era stores...nothing much on the shelves, and what's there is old, unusable, or unwanted. If, as you say, the Soviets copied our system, it doesn't serve to validate it...it raises warning flags.
We recognize that choice is good for people, that they are most likely to act in their own self interest. Why does anyone advocate differently for the decisions people make about their children's education? Why do we "allow" teachers to send their children to private schools? Why is choice good for some, but not others?
Who here would entrust their children's education to a school board elected by the same electorate who kept sending Marion Berry back to office? Anyone? Buehler?
Not the guy in this article, fer sure...and not most parents who have a realistic choice. The problem is, most don't.
So...what conclusions do you draw about the fact that public school teachers are much more likely than the general population to send their children to private schools? I say they have drawn conclusions about the quality of the education they deliver, and they are damning.
I don't understand the idea that public schools are good enough for someone else's children, but not their own...it suggests to me educators aren't fit to judge what is appropriate for my child. It suggests that they are elitist in ways that make the segregationists of the '50s public minded by comparison.
Back to your post...you mentioned US dominance of the world economically led one to conclude the public school system did a "more than adequate" job of educating US children. Were you grading a history test, I think the red pencil (are those still used?) would come out. You would point out that the US economy had two major, major advantages going forward from 1946...it was in one piece, not bombed to rubble...and it was the freest economy in the world.
It isn't possible to conclude that education system was competent or responsible in any way, much less all...in a hurricane, even turkeys can fly...if one grants that being blown around is "flying." It's also quite a leap to conclude that the product the schools deliver is the same product delivered 60 years ago. Demonstrably it's not.
You then mention opportunity cost. Tell me, what is the opportunity cost of the $$$ that to large degree have been pi$$ed away on a dysfunctional system? What is the opportunity cost of the millions of students who graduated (or not) less than educated? What is the opportunity cost incurred in waiting for the next great theory to flop?
Your comment:
The first, and most obvious, misconnect is that the GI Bill applied only to mature adults who were self-motivated and self-selected to continue their education. Contrast this to parents (who may, or may not, be mature adults) making decisions for children who neither necessarily self-motivated (in general) nor self-selected (think truancy laws).
Yet, you propose that no choice is superior to that. No, let me correct that...if any alternative is less than perfect, it isn't acceptable as an alternative to this demonstrably flawed system.
When choice is possible, alternatives exist and are used. We can then compare the results of each method and draw conclusions about their effectiveness...and many other things besides. When it's apparent how important engaged and committed parents are to a child's well being, we'll create a concensus for parenting standards. Those who don't measure up face losing their children...because we won't be BSing anymore about why Johnny can't read.
You mention the GI Bill. One is totally free to select any school they can be admitted to. You might want to address the fact that America's public schools rank far down in terms of quality...but our system of universities and coilleges is regarded to be the best in the world. The difference, of course, is choice. Next:
Now, consider that the “payback” of investment for societal investment in the “public” education system for children is, at best, 12 years, vice 4 for the GI Bill. Additionally, consider that absent the “mature adult/self-motivation/self-selection” criteria for the “public” school system a potentially large percentage of the investment is non-productive in terms of adequate payback (true whether a voucher system or not). A voucher system may address some portion of this problem at an increased systemic cost, but any proof that it would adequately improve the payback of the current system is pure speculation.
Flawed analysis; false alternatives. You set up a logical maze where the $$$ spent under a voucher program do not pass your analysis of adequate return on investment. Why did you not employ the same analysis on public schools? If I apply your criteria to the public schools, I reach the same place I am now...believing we are pumping money into a dysfunctional system.
It's not a question of whether we're going to have a system of public schools...but whether we'll have publicly funded, private schools, freely chosen by parents...or a government monopoly, run for all intents and purposes by special interests, most notably the NEA.
If I tried to design the most flawed system for delivering education, I couldn't come close to the current system.
Next:
A much stronger argument could be made for returning to the model for “public” education that existed prior to the 1960’s/1970’s in this country. However, it is certainly possible to object to this assertion on the basis of a permanently “changed world,” i.e., more urban/less rural communities, computers, internet, iPod’s, cable TV, etc. Nonetheless, there is proof that the model worked where there is no proof for a pre-college voucher system.
We're told that we can't teach reading or math or science or anything else the same way we used to, because "the world has changed." Why, then, would returning to some earlier time and method work? What is the difference?
Society is different; leftists have made it so. Your earlier model worked because society's values worked. The public schools don't work anymore because those values are different. Thank a hippie. Imagine a 1940s teacher in today's classroom, trying to teach using 1940s methods. It's a question of whom he'd be in more trouble with...the principal, the parents, or the union.
Vouchers are a threat because no reasonable and informed person would choose to send their children to a union run, government monopoly school. Theories aside, it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to see what works and what doesn't.