tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post3851001434482252097..comments2024-03-22T06:05:36.544-04:00Comments on Kids Prefer Cheese: Okay....NOW I'm Mad.Mungowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02340064320347875601noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-62565399303408340712007-03-09T01:55:00.000-05:002007-03-09T01:55:00.000-05:00The statists think that the child is just a condui...<A HREF="http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=340666&Category=9" REL="nofollow">The statists think that the child <B>is</B> just a conduit for revenue.</A><BR/><BR/>And in <I>this</I> corner, there are <A HREF="http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/the-bottom-line/" REL="nofollow">those of us with our heads screwed on straight</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-85792234896702377092007-03-06T20:41:00.000-05:002007-03-06T20:41:00.000-05:00I think that my initial comment was intended to ad...I think that my initial comment was intended to address two issues:<BR/><BR/>1) Reporters are likely to portray the issue as "Good vs. Evil". In this case public education is always the virtuous institution fighting against exclusive, and wealthy private schools. Why? Because having options undermines the premise the public schools are nothing but good. This may sound simplified, but having spent sometime in politics I've seen this formula repeated ad nauseum.<BR/><BR/>2) Good vs. Evil stories are "just", but not necessarily what the public wants to read. So there is always a...what's the word...oh yes, subtext (sorry, I erased it from my memory when I left graduate school). So to get people upset they throw in how it is "fleecing" the public. It sells more papers, and will win awards for the authors. The result is not a debate on whether the "good" institution can afford to grow at 1% or 5%, but why some evil force is competing with it at all.<BR/><BR/>So charters can in no way be helpful. The are "evil" as they call into question the efficacy of public schools, and they are harmful because they stop the good institution from doing even more good, whether they can afford to or not.<BR/><BR/>Or maybe I'm just becoming cynical after all.<BR/><BR/>anon-commAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-90821470432894326112007-03-06T11:15:00.000-05:002007-03-06T11:15:00.000-05:00I've had the same experience many times Prof. Mung...I've had the same experience many times Prof. Munger. 3 of my own are in charter schools and the 4th starts in the fall. We, and they, have been much happier and feel like we really get a chance to influence the schools for the better. My wife even gets to be the board president for a couple of years.<BR/>But, the misinformation continues, especially since the voucher bill passed here in Utah. Our state school board rep is trying to get a repeal on the ballot for next year. They just can't stand the loss of control over us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-2725483908746560532007-03-04T18:42:00.000-05:002007-03-04T18:42:00.000-05:00Before we start blaming the teachers' unions, why ...Before we start blaming the teachers' unions, why don't we try a little experiment... One assumes that if the unions are hurting education, then the schools in states where the unions are more powerful should have more problems, and the schools in states where unions are limited should be better schools. <BR/><BR/>That's why the schools in the South are so much better than anywhere else in the country. Because North Carolina public employee unions cannot legally engage in collective bargaining or strikes, their power is limited and keeps the NC public schools in the top five, nationally.<BR/><BR/>Waitaminit...Dirty Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07908818235405186822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-32555348458739001152007-03-03T15:48:00.000-05:002007-03-03T15:48:00.000-05:00"Unless school officials just intend to spend the ..."Unless school officials just intend to spend the "revenue" on silly pet projects, and ignore the needs of the students."<BR/><BR/>Sounds like a classic principal-agent problem. With the difficulty in firing "school fools" and the almost complete lack of performance-based compensation (hey - I'm a finance guy, so I believe in this stuff), voting with their feet is one of the few mechanisms parents have to control the problem. <BR/><BR/>And the agent NEVER likes things that keep them from doing what they want (hey - who does?).Unknownprofessorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06915963335561704298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-81324006056848149502007-03-03T14:13:00.000-05:002007-03-03T14:13:00.000-05:00On second thought....The anon-comm is only correct...On second thought....<BR/><BR/>The anon-comm is only correct if the schools are NOT overcrowded.<BR/><BR/>But Durham and Wake county are both saying that they need new bond issues. The reason?<BR/><BR/>THE AMOUNT OF $$ THEY GET FOR EACH STUDENT IS LESS THAN THE NEW STUDENT COSTS.<BR/><BR/>But....<BR/><BR/>That MUST mean that the charters are a help.<BR/><BR/>Unless school officials just intend to spend the "revenue" on silly pet projects, and ignore the needs of the students.<BR/><BR/>Which is of course precisely what they intend to do.<BR/><BR/>So....while the commenter is not wrong, if you add the additional premise (which happens to be empirically true) that each student costs more than s/he brings in in revenue, then the argument again goes through without a hitch.Mungowitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02340064320347875601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-14075598534355303312007-03-03T12:29:00.000-05:002007-03-03T12:29:00.000-05:00Now, THAT is a fair point. I should have been more...Now, THAT is a fair point. <BR/><BR/>I should have been more careful. It is NOT true that there are zero costs from exit.<BR/><BR/>BUT: Why didn't the writer for the N&O make YOUR point? I would have been more pleased with the article....<BR/><BR/>Still, you are quite right.Mungowitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02340064320347875601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-74049511599173339042007-03-03T12:13:00.000-05:002007-03-03T12:13:00.000-05:00Good point, but would you expect less from a burea...Good point, but would you expect less from a bureaucrat who will get to hire more staff if more schools are built, and hence a larger budget? So why give up a monopoly when you have so much to gain?<BR/><BR/>On another level, isn't the author's article really appealing to parents who aren't likely to exit anyway? <BR/><BR/>The point of the article to me has the following logic:<BR/><BR/>Parents who care about their child's education will exit if given the opportunity (monetary or choice). Parents who care about their child's education are more likely to learn, do well on standardized test, and go to college. Therefore, parents who are not as interested in their child's education will not exit the system, and these children are less likely to achieve. <BR/><BR/>So let's not address the issue of quality of education to this set of parents, since they won't exit anyway. Instead, appeal to their wallet - it will take something from them personally, never mind their kids.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com