In Arlington county, Virginia, we spend $23,000 (more or less, google it–200,000 people in the county, half a billion dollar school bill) per child on public education. The kids do get a pretty decent education, so I hear. Not that there’s really anything to compare it against….

But why not give every parent the *choice* where to educate their child? Give them, say, a $20k voucher and *subsidize* the public system with a $3k bonus for each kid they attract — when the parents hand over that $20k.

This isn’t a voucher to buy a Lexus instead of a Malibu. This is taking the exact same money we spend today and giving the consumer of that service a choice of provider. That’s all. If someone wants to kick in their own money on top of that, sure, fine, I don’t care. I just want every poor kid in the county a chance at a $20k/year private education.

Really, this is the same as we do with colleges/universities. In VA, we have UVA, George Mason, William and Mary (and others) — all state (public) schools, each of those I’d line up against any private institution in the country.

Why do they kick ass? Because they compete with private schools. End of story.

(Yeah, GMU lost a Nobel prize winner recently, but they are still a world-class Econ institution.)

I agree with you. As individuals we have very little say in how the dollars are spent. However, I don’t think that the public school system is unique in that aspect. For example, try to get the pothole in front of your driveway fixed; quickly and well.

Why is this right?

Because that is why the tax has been collected. In an effort to prevent widespread abject poverty, the state will collect monies to be used to provide some level of education.

Think of it this way, why do you feel that you have the right to receive a voucher to spend as you please simply because you have a school aged child? What if my childless neighbor expected that same right?

the lack of choice as to where MY kids may be educated.

To blame the system for lack of choice simply because you are poor, though I guess less rich is more accurate, is a bit of a stretch. Do you also feel that you should have some form of voucher system that would allow you to buy a new Lexus rather than the used Malibu? People with more money have more purchasing choices in many many markets.

I think you are missing at least one important point. The “choice” that I and most other school voucher proponents are talking about when we say under the current system we have NO choice, is the choice to determine where my tax money for the education of Everyman goes. That’s the real issue, not whether or not there should be tax monies for Everyman’s education.

Right now, my tax money for Everyman’s education is monopolized by the government-run public schools because it can go nowhere else. Why is this right?

Lastly, you also do not address the lack of choice that develops if I am not rich. If I am poor, my lack of choice as to where Everyman may be educated is the lack of choice as to where MY kids may be educated. As a parent, that makes it even worse.

I’m more than happy to help pay for Jane Everykid to learn the “three ‘Rs’”, plus national and world history, but there’s no easy way to donate à la carte. I am also forced to pay for her cheerleading, and her vice assistant principal’s generous retirement package.

The only real option is to run for the school board, and attempt to get some like-minded people elected, but, like paying for private schooling, that too is an economic cost, no ?

THAT I can agree with. However, it is different than claiming that I am being billed twice for private school. Or that I am not being offered choices. Or that I am forced to attend public school. Or that there exists some form of monopoly.

Well, right now I pay for your kid’s public education. And I’m not happy with the quality of service he’s getting for my money.

We pay for education in my state because it is part of my state’s constitution. I reject your assertion that if I support vouchers then I should reject taxation at all. The two are apples and oranges. My state has chosen to take on the obligation to educate kids until the age of 18, how we pay for it is the question, not IF we should pay for it.

If I have understood the above correctly, then I think that you are saying the state has agreed to educate all kids until 18. The missing emphasis (pardon me if that sounds funny) would be on the missing my . From the above, we are to say that the tax is being collected to educate all kids, not just yours. That is, the state has identified that the state suffers when its citizens do not have some form of minimum education.

Then you say this:

If we pay for it like we currently are, then I pay twice, once when I pay my taxes and once again when I pay tuition.

That’s where I disagree with you. My take is that when you pay your taxes you are paying for:

1. Education for Everykid.

When you send your kids to private school, you are paying for:

1. Education for YOUR kid.

My point is this; you are not paying for it twice. You are paying for two different things once each. You are getting exactly what you are paying for; the product of educating all kids and then, the private education.

I think of it this way. Assume that I have no children. I am paying taxes to educate the state’s kids through 18 years old. That is what I am paying for. Some agreed upon level of education for the state’s citizens. There is nothing in that relationship that speaks to my kids. Now, when I do decide to have kids, I may or may not want to purchase another product; private education. I don’t have to but I certainly don’t expect YOU to pay for my kid’s private education.

We pay for education in my state because it is part of my state’s constitution. I reject your assertion that if I support vouchers then I should reject taxation at all. The two are apples and oranges. My state has chosen to take on the obligation to educate kids until the age of 18, how we pay for it is the question, not IF we should pay for it. If we pay for it through vouchers, then parental choice creates a market. If we pay for it like we currently are, then I pay twice, once when I pay my taxes and once again when I pay tuition.

This is a pretty basic concept. Either way society pays, the question is does your kid’s tuition come with 3 bathrooms and granite countertops? The fact that you can’t leave the school in your area creates the coercive monopoly. It basically allows everyone but poor people bail out of bad school districts.

Imagine if we bought groceries the way we pay for education. All food is free at the point of delivery (at the store), you pay for it with your property taxes. If you want something special that is not on the shelves of your grocery store like sushi, organic soy milk or guava fruit you are screwed. You can’t by law shop anywhere else. So the best you can hope for is to lobby the resident/grocer association who are your grocer elected officials to add it to the inventory.

In a free market, you leave the store, you go down the street, you buy what you want. Done. I think you are getting hung up on this obligation that the states decided to pay for it. Fine, pay for it, just give me a choice, that’s all I am asking.

My point is this: If you support open market (vouchers) then I am confused why you support the concept of taxation at all. We wouldn’t even need vouchers if we just went totally private.

Of course, in this scenario, we would find a large portion of society that would be without schools and enter society un or under educated. We as that society have seen this as unacceptable, have built schools and intend to provide the basic level of education. Given that, I think that our schools are meeting this “minimum charter.

So, is the charter of public schools a minimum or a maximum?

I still not understanding you.

The point is, the public schools are chartered to meet a minimum requirement; every other “Ought” should be contained within the market.

Public schools cost zero dollars at the point of delivery. That means they are a monopoly in the most coercive sense. They take your money, whether or not you want them to, and they deliver whatever level of service and quality they feel like, and when parents complain, they demand more money.

Are you saying that public schools should be exempted from the “Market” while private schools should be part of the “Market”? Seems fair, to give me my tax dollars back then, so I don’t have to pay twice for my kid to go to school. Once when I pay my taxes, and again when I pay my tuition.

The point of vouchers is to open all schools to the “market”.