Here is a response to a friend of mine on the education issue, which might
be of general interest.
>Also, providing a choice requires that you have excess capacity. For a
>student to go to either school A or B, there must be space for the student
>at both schools. School capacity is not very flexable. Almost all of the
>costs (facilities, teachers/staff, and some supplies) are not incremental by
>student. So as students move from A to B, you can't really take the
>student's portion from A to B without dammaging A in general. Each of the
>student's old classes at A can't get 1/30 smaller.
True. We do, however, have the same problem in the airlines industry.
The marginal cost of an additional passenger in a plane that is below
capacity is effectively zero. (it is actually very small, but effectively
zero) It does not cost the airline any more to fly a plane with 72
passengers instead of 71. Once, however, you reach capacity, the
marginal cost of the next passenger is astronomical, as you have to pay for
a new plane, crew, and airport slot. Now, this does not mean that
competition is impossible in the airline industry - it just requires a
little regulation. Once you have a little regulation, competition
invariably seems to produce better results than the tightly-regulated
government monopoly.
Back to education, though, I see three major flaws with our system.
1) Institutional inertia - a general unwillingness to change and adapt
2) One size fits all - our education system effectively dictates that there
is only one educaitonal environment that is best for all students, and this
environment is strictly dictated by geography.
3) The rich are the only individiauls in our society that can choose the
education that they want for their children.
My focus right now is on the inherent unjustice of the latter.
One of the problems with the provision of socialized services is that it is
virtually impossible to provide "top of the line/cutting edge" service to
*everyone.* Thus, some level of service, below the maximum level, must
be chosen for provision. In many other countries, this problem is dealt
with by prohibiting the rich from purchasing better services than the
socialized offerings of the government. For example, the rich are often
prohibited from purchasing additional health care in countries with
nationalized health care, so as to prevent the creation of a two-tiered
system. Such a model, however, runs directly contrary to traditional
American notions of liberty, and as such, is probably unworkable here. It
is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to prevent the rich from
choosing private education for their children.
This inequality, however, may not be such a bad thing for our education
system. After all, every child in private school is one less child that
needs to be supported by tax dollars. Additionally, by spending money on
private education, the rich are effectively increasing the total amount of
money spent on education in this country.
Thus, the system would appear to benefit everyone. The poor obviously
benefit from the system because their children receive an education that
they might not otherwise receive. The rich, meanwhile, aren't so badly
off in our current system because their children still receive the same
amount of education that they would even without socialized education -
neverminding the externalities of having a well-educated society and work
force.
The benefits break down, however, when you consider the middle class.
Consider for a moment, a family in the very middle. Let's say that this
family pays about $5,000 in education taxes, and receives about $5,000 in
educational benefits for their only child. Now, let' say that the family
would like a higher quality education for their child than just the
government minimum. The private school down the road charges a tuition of
$8,000 - which they can't afford. Let's say, though, that they could
afford $3,000.
Now, if this family had never entered the education system in the first
place - everyone would be better off. If the family did not pay $5,000 in
education taxes, they would be able to afford the $8,000 tuiition, and
their child would benefit from a higher quality education. Meanwhile,
society would have $5,000 less in education revenue- but also $5,000 less
in education expenses. So this is a wash, except that society would also
benefit from an additional $3,000 being spent economy-wide on education,
and benefit also from one person being slightly more educated than before.
This is a win-win scenario. The same is true if the family is still part
of the educational system, but simply receives a $5,000 educational voucher.
Of course, this is a fairly specific case. What happens, however, in a
more general case?
Let's use the following variables:
Let T = Education taxes paid
Let B = Education benefits received
Let X = Private school tuition
Let Y = Amount towards private school tuition the family can afford (the
$3,000 in the above example.)
Now, if T - B > 0, the family is a net contributor to the educational
system. As a slightly more well-off than average family, they pay for
the educaiton of their children, as well as a contribution to the education
of more disadvantaged children (which is a good thing.) If, however, B >
X - Y > 0 - then the same squeeze is being felt that is described above.
If the family were given a voucher for their education benefits, they would
add the value of "X-Y" to overall education spending in the country.
Additionally, they would still be providing a subsidy of "T-B" to
disadvantaged children. Thus, in this situation the current system is
causing everyone to lose. (Note: Whenever X - Y < 0, the family is
classified as "rich" and is unaffected by the current system. Whenever B
< X - Y, a voucher doesn't change the outcome of the current system.)
Now, if T - B < 0, the family is a net drain on the system. Although they
probably do contribute some towards educational spending, they receive more
than they put in. Nevertheless, the same scenarios apply as above. A
win-win scenario can be made if B > X - Y > 0. In this scenario, X - Y >
0 is almost certainly true. B > X - Y, however, is only true if costs are
lower for private educators than public educators, which depends on locale
- but certainly has been empirically demonstrated to be true for many lower
middle class families in inner cities.
As you noted, this system would simply require a lengthy phase-in period.
Right now, there is not enough excess capacity in the education system to
handle vast amounts of switching from one school to the other. That
capacity will have to be created by a slow, but steady, increasing of the
demand for school choice. Additionally, many educational expenses are
indeed fixed, so it will take time to sort through the switching of schools
to arrive at the optimal distribution of students. I think, however, that
it can be done, eventually resutling in a voucher system with the following
parameters:
1) Means-test educational spending. Recently, the tax dollars of many
hard-working Americans paid for the education of George W. Bush's twin
daughters at Austin public schools, despite their considerable wealth.
Families that can afford to pay for the education of their children should
be forced to do so. We can no longer permit the rich to receive government
welfare.
2) Give one voucher of value B to all families below a certain income, and
slowly phased-out for incomes above that level.
3) The government continues to operate a system of secular (charter, where
possible) schools that continues to accept the value of one full-value
voucher for one education.
4) Any certified educational establishment is permitted to redeem a
voucher for cash from the government. Certification is results-oriented,
rather than process-oriented. i.e. so long as you demonstrate that your
children are learning a basic curricula, you can do whatever else you might
legally want to do with them. For example, conservative Christian schools
may continue to operate under the policy that they can teach Genesis-style
creationism, so long as their students understand that most scientists
accept the theory of evolution, and can demonstrate a working competence in
the theory of evolution.
5) The plan is phased-in starting with the poorest and most disadvantaged
Americans first. Americans are educated to understand that greater choice
of educational options will occur in population centers, and while the
government will guarantee an education - it can't guarantee that the
education will be exactly when and where you might want it.
I think that the above system will greatly expand the right to a high
quality education from the rich to many in the middle class.
Additionally, it may have salutory benefits towards remedying the other two
problems. This will create a broad array of educational choices to meet
the needs of a wider variety of children. Moreover, all schools will be
forced to adapt - and succeed - in order to survive. I think it is a
win-win.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today:
to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of
our lives and every life." - George W. Bush Inaugural Address 1/20/01
