Skip to main content

View Diary: Pennsylvania school voucher push is about privatization, not education (15 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think 'privatization' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rk2, Joe Hill PDX, Mostel26

    doesn't really get at it either. The point is the destruction of the public school system, shifting that money to religious groups and (more importantly) for profit corporations.  This is one more prime example of the Predator State.  

    Vouchers are a major step towards the destruction of our public schools.

    Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

    by David Kaib on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 03:25:53 PM PDT

    •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

      Vouchers are not about destroying the public school system.  For those people who are happy with the existing public school system they will just stay there.

      The issue is about school choice, which comes about in may different forms (i.e. reasons people want a choice):

      (1) Perceived quality of the education.

      (2) Desire for specialization: religious, arts, vocational, etc.

      (3) Using market forces to drive efficiency.

      None of these reasons is about destroying the public schools.

      •  You should read up (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        on the reasons why people like Friedman wanted vouchers.  The link was provided above. Opponents of public education have been quite open about why they favor vouchers, and their analysis is quite correct (on that score).

        In addition, the basic assumptions required to make markets work have no connection to the field of elementary and secondary education.  Absent those assumptions, there is no reason to think markets work.  "Efficiency" in relation to markets simply means lowering transaction costs, which is incoherent in this context (and no one other than economists really thinks that lowering transaction costs should be a central concern of policy).

        As for specialization, there are public schools that are already doing that and room for more, the exception being religious - but of course, using public policy to advance religion is forbidden under our Constitution.

        Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

        by David Kaib on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 07:40:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see where the poster is coming from... (0+ / 0-)

          I honestly have a hard time believing that many districts in my state are going to forego public schools.  Possible certainly but I do think there is a point to be made about districts where the education is superb.  People move to those districts for the schools.

          What I see happening is a two tier system...public schools for the wealthy or those in good districts and the dismantling of services to everyone else including youth in urban areas.  If I look at charters in PA, they aren't in the good districts.  I see vouchers following the same line of expansion.  So it will relieve the burden on the state to only subsidize those good districts while subsidizing the second tier districts at lower levels and expecting local property taxes to make up the difference.

          Or all districts get cut to the bare minimum but since the better public schools are in the wealthier districts, their local property taxes can make up for the cuts.  No way, Upper Merion or Springfield or Radnor or Swathmore public schools go away.  Philly schools however, yes and guess what?  

          I for one am tired of pandering to perpetrators --- many of whom are opposed to any discussion however it comes. -- soothsayer99 DPK Caucus

          by princss6 on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 08:08:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site