*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

I'm not sure if you understand how the voucher system works and how it doesn't work.

Under the current system, a low-income parent is forced to send his or her child to school X. They have no choice. The representative funding for that child is given to that school directly from the government regardless of how that school performs. There is no incentive for the school to perform well.

Under a voucher system, a low-income parent gets to decide to send the child to school X, Y or Z. They do have a choice. The representative funding for that child goes to the school that is chosen. This provides incentives for the schools to perform well to be competitive. Otherwise, they're out of jobs.

This also creates an upward pressure in public education in general, which currently doesn't exist.

It's a nice dream, but there are so many "what if's" and "yeah buts" that I just don't see it being viable except in maybe a few locales.

[BananaStand]

It's a nice dream, but there are so many "what if's" and "yeah buts" that I just don't see it being viable except in maybe a few locales.

For example, how would vouchers help this situation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarem..._New_Hampshire

You're probably not familiar with the geography of Claremont, but it's WAAAAAAY the fuck out there, accessible by only secondary roads, surrounded by sprawling rural-ness.

Their school blows. If you gave a parent in Claremont a voucher, what would he do with it?? Is he gonna commute to Newport to drop off and pick up his kid from school? How do we know that this school in Newport even has room for Claremont kids? Sure, you're saying "the voucher pays for the additional capacity". To a point that's true. But kids still have volume. They take up space. Eventually a school building will need to expand if enough kids come from out of town. School overhead increases....now your voucher money doesn't go as far. Who pays the difference??

Are you gonna go back to the town of Claremont and ask them for the money? How could they pay it if they can't even afford to take care of their own school?? Does Newport pick up the bill? How is that fair? They were doing fine until all this Claremont trash came into town.

And what if Newport high sucks too?? (it does). Are claremont families gonna commute even farther cause there is a better school in Keene?? Do they really care when ultimately a high school diploma is totally generic anyway? When was the last time someone asked what high school you went to as a measure of your academic credibility? Isn't it more likely that most of the Claremont families would just spend their vouchers on the school that's most convenient?

So that puts us right back where we started. How does a voucher solve this problem?

[wufwugy]

Could you imagine if the government told you which grocer to shop at and when you got there government employees gave you the food items it decided for you and garnished everybody's paychecks to pay for them? Anybody think that's crazy? Well that's similar to how k-12 education works right now.

[BananaStand]

Could you imagine if the government told you which grocer to shop at and when you got there government employees gave you the food items it decided for you and garnished everybody's paychecks to pay for them? Anybody think that's crazy?

It's less crazy when you consider that an apt analogy to education would also specify that the government is responsible for funding the operations of the farms and factories that produce the food.

[wufwugy]

It's less crazy when you consider that an apt analogy to education would also specify that the government is responsible for funding the operations of the farms and factories that produce the food.

I don't understand the point. Are you saying that governments are responsible for education but not responsible for feeding? If so, that's by law. Are you saying that should be the case by philosophy? If so, why the distinction? Why is the private sector good at feeding itself but not good at educating itself?

[spoonitnow]

Could you imagine if the government told you which grocer to shop at and when you got there government employees gave you the food items it decided for you and garnished everybody's paychecks to pay for them? Anybody think that's crazy? Well that's similar to how k-12 education works right now.

Yep.

[spoonitnow]

For example, how would vouchers help this situation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarem..._New_Hampshire

You're probably not familiar with the geography of Claremont, but it's WAAAAAAY the fuck out there, accessible by only secondary roads, surrounded by sprawling rural-ness.

Their school blows. If you gave a parent in Claremont a voucher, what would he do with it?? Is he gonna commute to Newport to drop off and pick up his kid from school? How do we know that this school in Newport even has room for Claremont kids? Sure, you're saying "the voucher pays for the additional capacity". To a point that's true. But kids still have volume. They take up space. Eventually a school building will need to expand if enough kids come from out of town. School overhead increases....now your voucher money doesn't go as far. Who pays the difference??

Are you gonna go back to the town of Claremont and ask them for the money? How could they pay it if they can't even afford to take care of their own school?? Does Newport pick up the bill? How is that fair? They were doing fine until all this Claremont trash came into town.

And what if Newport high sucks too?? (it does). Are claremont families gonna commute even farther cause there is a better school in Keene?? Do they really care when ultimately a high school diploma is totally generic anyway? When was the last time someone asked what high school you went to as a measure of your academic credibility? Isn't it more likely that most of the Claremont families would just spend their vouchers on the school that's most convenient?

So that puts us right back where we started. How does a voucher solve this problem?

Congrats on digging to try to find a cherry-picked case that has nothing to do with inner city schools in predominantly black neighborhoods. However, to your question, there would be a profit-driven motive for another school to be built in that situation.

[Poopadoop]

Congrats on digging to try to find a cherry-picked case that has nothing to do with inner city schools in predominantly black neighborhoods. However, to your question, there would be a profit-driven motive for another school to be built in that situation.

Wait, spoon is arguing and being sarcastic with himself now?

[BananaStand]

Congrats on digging to try to find a cherry-picked case

Well it's a problem that affects the entire state of NH. One fiftieth of the country. That's a huge fucking cherry.

that has nothing to do with inner city schools in predominantly black neighborhoods.

So you would selectively implement this voucher program only in certain neighborhoods?

However, to your question, there would be a profit-driven motive for another school to be built in that situation.

By whom? With what money?

[spoonitnow]

Well it's a problem that affects the entire state of NH. One fiftieth of the country. That's a huge fucking cherry.


So you would selectively implement this voucher program only in certain neighborhoods?



By whom? With what money?

1. NH is hardly 1/50 of the country by any measure.

2. I would implement it in all neighborhoods. In your example you asked about, assuming it would change nothing is not sufficient reason to not switch to the voucher system.

3. By someone who could profitably run a better school than what's available with their own money or with the money of investors. That's how free markets work.

[BananaStand]

1. NH is hardly 1/50 of the country by any measure.

Any measure?? What about Senate representation? HA!

2. I would implement it in all neighborhoods. In your example you asked about, assuming it would change nothing is not sufficient reason to not switch to the voucher system.

So a universal solution that only solves problems for a fraction of the population is a good thing?? I thought you were a conservative?

3. By someone who could profitably run a better school than what's available with their own money or with the money of investors. That's how free markets work.

That means that the existence of the school, like any private enterprise, is subject to risk. And in a nationwide aggregate, surely some schools will fail, leaving some kids education-less. So you've traded one problem for another. Where's the upside??

As I've discussed previously, one of the the few core responsibilities of government is to provide every citizen with access to a fair marketplace. Someone without an education has less, or no access. Therefore, it's the government's responsibility to provide that education. And in that endeavor, I don't think it's right for the government to be taking risks. In the aggregate, long-enough term, some risks are realized. And when they are....real lives are hurt.

[wufwugy]

As I've discussed previously, one of the the few core responsibilities of government is to provide every citizen with access to a fair marketplace. Someone without an education has less, or no access.

Ah I'm happy you've made this point. Because a good deal of education is counterproductive. For example, somebody who will be a janitor or a plumber is wasting valuable resources with the vast majority of the education he receives. This even applies to others it may seem like it doesn't, like accountants, just to a lesser degree. Each hour a future janitor spends reading Shakespeare or doing algebra that he otherwise wouldn't if the government didn't tax and spend and organize the structure such that he decides to do that schooling, the worse off he will be than if he just started working early. This person at the lowest rung will tend to gain skills better that way, and at the higher rung will accrue significantly more wealth by doing so (time value of money because he smartly saves as a young worker).

I get that people think everybody deserves a chance at an education. Okay, so then make that the policy, make it so that if they want to pay for it they have that option. But structuring it like we do now hurts the least skilled and least intelligent the most by displacing them and taking away their most productive years.

Therefore, it's the government's responsibility to provide that education.

Somebody who can't eat doesn't have access to a fair marketplace either. Why should the government run the farms and the transportation and the grocers?