I want you to ask yourself something that you know intuitively… does competition bring more benefit to the customer or the company? I know, it’s too easy… the customer. Competition forces organizations to do one of many options: improve their product, become more efficient and lower their costs, decrease profit margin to attract customers, create new and exciting products. In all these scenarios the customer wins out. They either get a highly improved and quality product, or they can receive incredible value for their dollar in the form of low prices.
Now I want you to ask yourself… who is the customer and who is the company when thinking about education? Obviously, the customers are the students – and indirectly, their parents as well. And one of the easiest and most convenient ways to bring competition to education is through school vouchers. The amount of money allotted from our government for each child’s education remains the same as it is now, but instead of the public schools getting the money directly from the government, they get it from the students (read: parents) in the form of a voucher. So now the student has a choice of where they want to go to school, and all schools are competing for their dollar vouchers.
Who do you think will benefit most from this arrangement? The students and parents, correct? So who do you think would be most opposed to it? Public-funded schools and their teachers, correct? And it’s true, the teachers unions and school districts are the most vocal opponents of the voucher system. But I don’t get that. If you claim to be most concerned about students and learning… wouldn’t you support what’s best for them?
But as is typical with union mentality and protectionist measures, the interests of the few are put ahead of the many. Competition may mean that your job isn’t as secure (how novel an idea!). Competition may mean that others do things better than you (how novel an idea!). Competition may mean that you don’t get a pension (how novel an idea!). Competition may mean that you work more than 9 months a year (how novel an idea!). Competition may mean working more hours than you previously worked (again… how novel an idea!).
But guess what? Competition may mean that good teachers actually get paid more (unbelievable!). Competition may mean that bad teachers are fired (aghast!). Competition may mean that some schools will close (never!). Competition may mean that our education system finally gets on track after years and years of a downward spiral brought on by the elimination of innovative and competitive thoughts and actions by a highly centralized bureaucracy (hope AND change!).
In addition to the competitive forces that vouchers would release… it also would seem to me to be the most fair for taxpayers. No longer would a parent who sends their child to a private school be paying into their education twice.
Just what was running through my head this morning.
I’d love to hear the thoughts against vouchers, because from where I’m coming from I don’t see them.
Mark,
I agree with much of your reasoning. Unfortunately I don’t believe the idea that good economics will solve our problems. Somewhere down the line (by way of Reagan/Thatcher) American/British people became convinced that everything boils down to economics. Everything is looked at from an economic perspective. Unfortunately, I believe it is more about ideals that we as a society uphold rather than economics. In the end, if education if privatised, there will be better schools that cost more based upon economics. And those who have not will be forced to attend the lower-end schools. I believe that capitalism inevitably marginalises. The same goes with private healthcare.
The only way that education will improve is if we get our minds off of economics and onto the values of the kingdom of God. Teachers will work hard to instill virtues in their students because that is what works best. Students will not be taught that school is a way to better oneself to climb the socio-economic ladder. Instead, students will strive to make this world better for the other.
Capitalism is dynamic and brilliant in many ways. But capitalism is ultimately a lottery and the idea that anyone can participate and achieve what the American dream promises is a lie. So capitalism opens up a possibility for success but does not guarantee that outcome. I believe ideals make a culture strong regardless of socio-economic status and GDP.
Hearkening back to something Pete and I discussed in an earlier comment thread, the idea of education for all is a very new idea. In 1870 20% of Americans were illiterate. In 1940 that number dropped 3%. We’re now somewhere around 1%. This is a wonderful thing, but it is a new thing. There isn’t a historical model for educating 300 million people.
Even with 99% of Americans reading there are obviously have some serious flaws in the educational system. You say it’s bad economics, I say it’s bad ideals, and bad ideals can’t be fixed by whatever ‘good economics’ is.
Elijah, I know I’m usually rattling on about pure capitalism solely… but I never mentioned privatization here. The voucher system does not eliminate public education. Public schools will compete with private schools for the funds coming from the vouchers. Ideally the competition will improve public schools in addition to providing choice to parents.
And also in allusion to focusing values on the kingdom of God… we have discussed before about which environment is more likely to embrace or even allow spiritual growth. A free private environment or one strictly controlled by government. I don’t think you are going to find much of a rush to God’s values through public school boards.
I first want to say that regardless of whether or not education is made fully private, education is not a commodity like a new pair or shoes or a new television. Still, if competition occurs between Sony and Mitsubishi and Sony makes a better product, the consumer wins out with Sony, leaving Mitsubishi behind. If there was competition in public schools in America I truly believe that it will leave thousands, if not millions of Americans behind. Just because Walmart exists and because you support its business practises doesn’t mean that you shop there. And just because places with better products exist – say J Crew – doesn’t mean that suddenly we all have J Crew clothes. J Crew can stay in business without competing with Walmart price wise because it has a better product. But more Americans shop and Walmart, not because it produces better shirts than J Crew, but because it’s far more affordable. The same would apply to education if it was made a commodity by competition. Most Americans would go to the cheaper schools because it’s all they can afford, even with a voucher.
I’m not talking about developing some programme we pitch to school boards or anything, Mark. I do think that the values of the kingdom of God are very present in very public/socialistic countries – i.e. caring for the other, valuing equality and justice. But it’s still not a matter of legislation or lobbying – the kingdom of God is apolitical. Instead I believe that the Church should be more unified in order to powerfully effect this world through the proclamation of the Gospel in words and deeds.
This might include social programmes, but the change will happen when the Church is distinctly kingdom-oriented (I believe that the ‘Church in America’ is largely non-Christian) and is demonstrating God’s love for the world. This all sounds lofty, but it is extremely practical. I know we’ve talked about this before, and you disagree with Friedman in saying that capitalism need not be based on self-interest (a view that would lead some to believe that you’re not a capitalist at all), but what do you think should be the primary motive for a capitalistic entrepreneur, CEO and consumer (assuming that they might have different motives)?
Also, it seems to me that you believe many (if not all) social issues will be improved by way of increased ‘freedom’. It also seems to me that you typically reduce ‘freedom’ to ‘economic freedom’. Is this a fair assessment?
My last thing – I was going to post about this and still might – what do you think about President Obama’s proposal to privatise the issue of transportation to the International Space Station? I think that NASA is an incredible anomaly as far federal programmes go, considering it has typically been rather private (i.e. private companies bidding for a federal contract, which is very similar to private companies bidding for the funding from an private investor, although you would might say that the demands of the government after awarding this commission are probably less free and therefore less effective than those of a private investor, maybe). Is it your view that the Keynesian model is always bad?
It seems that the primary argument against vouchers is the one that Elijah is making, that education cannot and should not be treated like a market commodity. I sort of understand this reasoning, but I don’t understand why we don’t at least try it out. I don’t remember the details, but wasn’t there a pilot voucher program in Washington D.C. that was showing promise before the Obama administration shut it down recently? If there’s anywhere that could use such an experiment it’s D.C. where, as I understand it, the public schools are especially dismal. Why shut down a new idea only to revert to an approach that’s been a proven failure?
Elijah, I don’t understand why you’re fixated on vouchers creating a “have and have not” scenario. It’s actually the opposite- parents with little means would be able to use the tax money that the state would pay for their child’s schooling and apply it in any way they see fit, be it a public school across town or a private school, a benefit that is much less meaningful to wealthy parents who can afford to use their own money to send their kids anywhere they want. Larry Elder used to routinely reference data showing that parents in low-income areas favor vouchers more than any other segment of the population, since it would help them the most (I don’t have the data myself, but I’ll look for it if I must). He was always so befuddled as to why democrats were so opposed to something that poor people so clearly wanted and that, seemingly, would be in their best interest.
I identify with the arguments on both sides of this coin, but I don’t understand why it’s not at least given a shot, when the status quo seems to be an abject failure on so many counts. The knee-jerk aversion to the very mention of it by many on the left strikes me as dogmatic and contrary to the spirit of progress and improvement.
Pete, I think charter schools have been more of the focus in DC. But there have been vouchers as well, and that program is ending.
Pete,
While I agree that at first the vouchers will give people with little means the opportunity to go to schools across town or private schools, I think they will inevitably lead to marginalisation. The problem is that when kids from North Long Beach start going to better schools in Los Alamitos, the wealthier families, with the vouchers and the means to do more on top of the voucher, will send their kids to the more esteemed and expensive schools. The better teachers will go where they are paid more and the scenario we are in now, with apathetic teachers in uncompetitive schools, will shift exclusively to those who cannot afford the edge that competitive will provide.
Part of the whole basis of the public school system is the fact that everyone contributes. I admit it, it is semi-socialistic and if you disagree with any amount of redistribution you will disagree with the public school system.
I believe that more than anything else what needs to change is the attitudes of educators. They ought to impel students to demand more from their education. I simply don’t believe that if a student wants more they don’t get it. My life is a great example of this:
I was born in South Gate, moved to the Inland Empire, and finally settled in Long Beach when I was seven. That year the district noticed some high test scores and put me through a series of tests and determined that I should skip a grade or go into an accelerated programme because I was not benefiting as much as I could be in my regular class. I was exclusively public schooled my whole life and when I graduated high school I received offers from many desirous schools in a diverse number of fields. On top of that, I was able to enter into a university with nearly a year’s worth of full-time credits from AP classes I had the opportunity to take.
I also got to study art throughout high school, one of my greatest passions, and the public school paid for hundreds of dollars of art supplies that I could not have otherwise afforded. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe that you and Mark oppose public funding of the arts. I believe you are making a categorical mistake in viewing art based upon what you perceive as its lack of utility in a society compared to things like a proper mathematical education. Once again, in reducing these things to a commodity we are overlooking the breadth of the human experience. We are not just economic units or taxpayers – we are humans. In his book, Bearing Fresh Olive Leaves, Calvin Seerveld comments,
All of this to say that the public school is a matter of attitude and that I was most certainly not held back, but given invaluable lessons that I take with me even now as a Ph.D. student nearly 7000 miles away. If vouchers were the norm then my public school would be marginalised, I wouldn’t have had enough money on top of the voucher to go to a high quality school, as I demonstrated with the J Crew and Walmart example. I would be forced to go to the Walmart school with the majority of the population that will inevitably be marginalised as a result of competition.
Longer comment below. I just wanted to say though, that I wish I could visit you up in the highlands to have a pint and share in the movies and music that we have such convergence on.
Elijah-
As usual you make some very good and plausible arguments. And I will try to reply to both of your comment sections here. I do believe that many social issues are based around freedom… and it is definitely fair to say that I focus on economic freedom, though I do not reduce freedom to that. It just seems that in a society where fundamental rights have been instituted in our constitution that one of the only ways to control people is to control money. You may not be able to take away peoples freedom to smoke, but you can tax it to the nth degree to try and make people not smoke. You may not be able to take away peoples freedom to start a business, but you can force them to pay certain wages and benefits to make it harder. We have much freedom in this country and I am incredibly thankful for that… and so I jealously protect against what I see as encroachments to that.
That aside, I continue to be very curious why you would be so suspicious and opposed to something as moderate as a voucher system. If you think that our education system has been improving in all the years since the department of education was established then I would see great reason not to change anything. But the exact opposite is true, and yet any attempt to reform or provide choice is met with the strictest resistance. The way I see it, even if in the worst case scenario vouchers created a Walmart-style system… how would that be worse than what we have now? And yet what if it turned out even better. You are very definitive whn you say that out schools WILL BE “marginalized”. Why? What evidence to support this view? I can point to a million stories of where competition has increased value and services. I’d like you to point out the areas where complete monopoly has led to the best of anything? And besides, Walmart – though it in your mind produces inferior shirts to J Crew – has allowed more people to buy more shirts than they could have before. And in case you hadn’t noticed both Walmart and Target have used their scale to bring very nice clothing and products to their customers now. I have bought a lot of clothing at Target and a lot of electronic products at Walmart… and I certainly don’t feel like I was compromising any quality at all, and I certainly don’t feel marginalized.. I think you are a bit prejudiced against big box retailers and are loathe to find much value in their model. And I would point out that my shopping choices are not limited to Walmart and J Crew – but are “confined” to hundreds of retailers that offer products of every conceivable price point, not just cheap and expensive as you appear to believe. But obviously the analogy for Walmart and schools is tenuous to begin with so I won’t go on more about it.
As for your personal schooling example, I appreciate you sharing. I can also share with you about the numerous kids at my high school who received scholarships, and about the music, theater, chorale, and art programs that my private school had. Is it your impression that these programs only exist in public schools? I was just at an event for St. Anthony High School yesterday where I was informed that 70% of the students are on needs and merit-based scholarship. These are just two examples off the top of my head. Though both our experiences are anecdotal I can assure you that quite often poor students with interested parents are able to attend either public or private schools.
As for NASA, I’m actually very supportive (of what I know) of the presidents reduction of NASA funding and programs. I know you are a space nut and know infinitely more than I… but for quite a while I have been curious of if their might have been better uses for the billions and billions of dollars we have spent on space programs. That said, I would have been more than happy to save the space program and ditch other larger funded programs in our country’s budget first. As for the private companies bidding for contracts… there is a big difference from private investors, in that private investors are much more discriminating. Government contracts are known to be larded and are often taken advantage of by private contractors. Private firms are liable to be ripped off as well, but they have far more oversight and incentive to track their money.
I also am not sure where we discussed a disagreement with Friedman. I believe that capitalism can be described as based on individuals self-interest… but also more so on freedom. And with that freedom you can be self-interested or other-interested, it’s your choice. To be honest I think it is a matter of semantics. What if I am moved to help the poor, and I do something about that in a meaningful way? I’ve pursued my self-interest (helping others) and am able to act on that in a free society. So I think defining capitalism as based on freedom and liberties is more useful and complete a definition.
Finally, I will just quickly touch on your ideals for kingdom of God mentality in our world. I also want the gospel to be spread and the peace of Christ to grow in our society… I just continue to have trouble seeing why a move away from freedom of choice helps that. I know you see those values at work in socialist-lite countries… but I see them ten-fold here too. I’ll point again, as I have other times, to books such as “Who Really Cares” by Brooks to find research about which countries and what worldviews in those countries are most representative of those who are most giving, caring and desiring of equality. It is certainly not limited to freedom-loving Americans, but is certainly led by them.
Sorry for the long diatribe. Hope to grab a beer with you state-side soon and we can celebrate Chelsea’s eventual EPL title!
Mark,
I’ll respond in greater length later. For now I will tell you two things: I am not going to be state-side for a long time & ARSENAL. Chelsea might win EPL, but they got bumped out of Champions in the round of 16 while Arsenal made it to the quarters.
True. But FC Porto is not the same as Inter Milan who we lost to. Arsenal’s having a tough time at the finish here in the EPL…. but then we are faltering too.
Mark,
I have a lot to say, but I don’t suspect I have the time to get around to all of it. First off, I will deal with my ‘J Crew & Walmart’ illustration. It was an illustration, used in a hyperbolic manner to point something out. In trying to defuse it you have appealed to Walmart’s selection of consumer electronics, which is a standard – if you buy the new MGMT album at Walmart you’re getting the same thing as if you buy it at Best Buy or Virgin Megastore. And you are right that there are many options in the capitalistic system. But the problem is that there will be no standardisation of goods (since we have effectively reduced education to a commodity) if the system becomes more privatised. If you bought a crappy RCA flatscreen TV at Circuit City when it was going out of business you ended up with a crap television. That’s a waste of a few hundred dollars. Next major electronic purchase you make will be at a better store and you will buy a better product. Thus illustrates the beauty of capitalism. But my issue is this: if a parent sends his or her child to School A only to discover after four years that School A wasn’t as good as School B, well the education was not an investment in a flatscreen TV. A real education has been lost. The less competitive schools will not ‘go out of business’ before they have caused serious damage to the opportunities of ‘consumer’ students. I believe that the vouchers will inevitably lead to more privatisation and how will any sort of academic standards be maintained in a system like that?
Also, I was not suggesting that the opportunities I had were exclusive to public schools, I was more so expressing what I consider to be something that elevates the potential of the public school system that you decry.
We did write briefly in a previous thread concerning the idea of self-interest and how you believe that the concepts of freedom and liberty should replace the emphasis on self-interest (or something to that effect) and in quoting John McCain and Barack Obama, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” Repackaging capitalism based upon some vague notion of what ‘freedom’ is makes the concept more attractive and I don’t blame you for doing that. I simply think it functions the same way as capitalism blatantly based upon self-interest. I do not believe that freedom inevitably leads to compassion based upon Brooks’ book, which is most certainly not without its detractors. Brooks is first and foremost an economist, then an armchair sociologist. I don’t care if Americans give half of their wealth to charitable organisations (which they most certainly do not) – why do people give?
This leads me to what I consider the heart of the issue: motivations. What are our starting points? You give yourself fully over to capitalism because you say you’ve seen no better system. I believe that you have presuppositions that align with capitalism and capitalism alone, so even if you were to be faced with a system that was more beneficial to the whole of society you would not see it as such. You have a set of beliefs—as I do—concerning what is most valuable in society. What is your starting point? I believe that your starting point is ‘freedom’. Why is ‘freedom’ a deserving starting point? Why not ‘equality’ or ‘compassion’ or ‘love’? Perhaps you would say that once one has freedom the other things have the chance to follow, but what I am asking is why is ‘freedom’ first? If I was a slave I could still exercise what is necessary in the kingdom of God. Our differences are not a matter of minutia, but an entirely different framework. We even measure human progress differently. Would it be unjust for me to use my ‘freedom’ to give up said ‘freedom’? Your response might be, “Yes, but don’t impose that on other people!” Once again, I believe that if ideals were different, if people valued compassion, love and equality first and foremost the fervour for capitalism would diminish.
I have one last question. I know that you’ve criticised what people oftentimes call ‘poverty’ in America and I agree with you. But there is still the fact that many Americans are impoverished. Many of these people struggle with mental illness and many of them with substance addiction. But let’s take those who have been dealt a difficult hand and truly want to work for a better life. Is this situation a result of too much socialism in America?
I have many friends who would like to engage in this conversation, friends who are far more knowledgeable that I am when it comes to economics, and many of these people are studying management, international business and economics in postgraduate programs here at St Andrews, which leads me to suspect that they might even know things that you don’t know, Mark. Maybe they will participate…
You are right that we have different frameworks, and I’ll leave that alone and let my views that I’ve stated before stand… other than to say I continue to value your opinion, and am glad you embrace them as strongly as I do mine. It forces me to continually examine my thoughts and hopefully do the same for you.
As for your question of the poor American who is maligned by a difficult life situation and not a lack of work ethic. I think there are many people, places and organizations that offer help to people like this and I would hope that they were able to connect. It’s possible that people may fall through the cracks even with private or public resources out there. That is just a matter of life, and you do what you can do limit that. Whether our society was pure capitalist, pure socialist, or some sort of hybrid… it will still happen. I don’t believe in utopia. I don’t think capitalism offers any such guarantees otherwise… and socialist idealism would be incorrect if it guaranteed it.
If you insist…
This is my first post on CAI although I’ve been following it for a while now.
I’m addressing my comments to you, Mark.
Economic freedom is important to you and in your view, when the government sets a minimum wage then it is making it harder to start a business. What you see as a restriction on economic freedom and on competition on the labour market, I see as protection of the rights of human beings to being treated like human beings, not like human resources or factors of production, there to be exploited if competition allows for it.
Of course workers’ rights are a restriction on competition, so the companies that compete most effectively, the big businesses that have the means to do it, simply move their labour-intensive operations abroad to countries that have little concern for working conditions and human rights and instead concentrate on fostering economic growth.
In the US or in Western Europe we do not see those countries’ poor working conditions because they are not permitted, we only see the final outcome – cheap shirts from Wal-Mart – and praise the most frequently cited advantages of competition: more better quality goods for a lower price. As far as finance goes, the price is indeed lower, but as soon as you see it from a wider perspective, not purely economic, the picture changes. Wal-Mart just transferred the costs from itself and from its customers to someone else, somewhere else where the media has a hard time finding out about it, for instance the exploited workers in developing economies in Honduraz and China (or half of Wal-Mart’s 1.4 million workforce that is not covered by healthcare and underpaid).
So Wal-Mart has the resources to go look for economic freedom outside the US which restricts it with unions and minimum wages etc. and this is what Wal-Mart is free to do. When the American society finds out, it is shocked and dismayed. Economic freedom at what non-economic cost? Seeing economics in purely economic terms does not always provide you with the full picture.
Elijah is right to bring up the issue of motivation. You believe that privatisation hands things over to private companies that are forced by competition to provide better service. If they are forced to do so by competiton then perhaps it is true but their primary purpose is still to make profit and the service is secondary to that e.x. the German National Rail (DB) service has sharply deteriorated since its privatisation (the trains have delays, the railways aren’t kept in a good state) because in a market environment with little competition they are allowed to cut corners to reduce the costs of operating their business. When DB was part of the state-owned infrastructure, its objective was to provide transport services. Now its objective is to maximise profits and that does not always mean better. It is not so much about monopoly or competition as about serving society or making profits.
As for capitalism, freedom, profit and Milton-there’s-no-such-thing-as-free-lunch-Friedman, Friedman’s NY Times article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Make Profits” makes it quite clear what he thinks the foundation of capitalism is. According to Friedman, you’re free to be charitable outside your working hours, but any motivation other than profit is immoral in the workplace (and also illegal for publicly listed companies in Britain and in the US I believe). So does capitalism really give you the freedom to choose?
You’re free to choose in the evening whether you want to be a complacent consumer or an adamant Christian but the market itself tends to reward immoral behaviour. Why do so many companies outsource their manufacturing to developing countries? Because the competition does it, so to keep their margains they have to do it also, in the same low-cost labour areas (you could also choose somewhere cnot so far from home, e.x. Southern California, where on 2000 the overall level of compliance with the minimum wage, overtime and child labour requirements of the Fair Labor Standards was still only 33% – US Dep of labor). You want to reduce your carbon footprint and unemployment in your area and pay your workers decent wages? You’ll probably go out of business. In that way capitalism does restrict your freedom.
Ethical investment is probably the only field I know of in which ‘ethical’ doesn’t equal ‘less returns’ (on average, ethical inverstment funds do just as well as regular ones and there’s a whole debate on just how ethical they are anyway). Even when you just take CSR, you will find that yes, it does pay but only in moderate amounts and combined with good marketing. If you’re too good, it doesn’t pay. CSR is a nice idea but there’s still the motivation problem. When business starts to try to take care of the government’s share, there’s a conflict of objectives. It wants to make money, primarily. If service to society stops paying, it has to go. If not, you start to lose out to the competition who are better at figuring out what boosts the sales figures.
Whether it’s trains, t-shirts or education, the objective of business will be to answer/create demand, minimise costs and maximise returns. Not provide the best train service, t-shirts or education. I wouldn’t like to see market principles applied to education. I won’t elaborate on this because of lack of time but I agree with most of what Elijah said about how with the commodification of education we are likely to get high end and low end products, product diversification and marketing (just insert ‘school’ where ‘product’ is) and all the problems with dishonesty, misguided self-evaluation criteria etc that the modern marketplace is criticised for.
A.M., thanks for commenting… I’m sorry you haven’t done so before, hopefully this can become a trend.
You can find my response to many of your points about Walmart in the post and comments of posts I did on Walmart here and here.
I find your sentiments about being treated as a human being as very interesting. I’m curious where you find in history, religion, or any other worldview where we are all promised a job with pay that will satisfy a “living wage”? Is the farmer, whether in a civilized or tribal area, who grows and hunts his own food and built his own shelter being denied proper treatment as a human being? Obviously not. But we in the developed world have become so accustomed to laughably high standards of living unknown to all humanity for thousands of years that we now demand it as a right and vilify the person who does not provide another with what we consider to be a satisfactory lot in life. I am not trying to trivialize your point but just ask you to pause and consider these “rights” that you require for everyone, and how they even developed to begin with.
You bring up valid points about foreign labor and how they are treated and I hope that companies and consumers are motivated to examine what they can do to improve things. As comparatively wealthy people we can make significant differences around the world. But I promise you that no worker in any free foreign country is passing up another better position to work in sub-optimal conditions. It may pale in comparison to what we are willing to do, but I think you would be foolish to think that Nike or Walmart has taken people from some lush life and forced them to do anything. Even the most cynical of views (which I often hold) would have to admit that. And while it is not an ideal is it not, in the interim, better than the alternatives they have?
I disagree with your view that markets reward the immoral – in the long run. Quickly, I will just say that I think the marketplace is where the immoral are found out. Enron, Tyco and Worldcom, even Bernie Madoff were all brought down by individuals inside… even ones with much to lose. Besides, are governments inherently moral in the markets stead?
As for your views on CSR I will wholeheartedly agree with Friedman that it is not the company’s role. Public traded companies are not run by owners, but managers. The owners (investors) can choose as they will what to do with their dividends and capital gains. They (you and I) can choose to buy or sell based on whether we believe what companies are doing is good or bad. It may be flawed, but ethical investment funds, and businesses based on environmentalism or compassion exist in every industry and it wasn’t mandated by government.
Gentlemen,
Here’s what I think most everyone here has overlooked: the poorest of America’s poor.
My wife is a high school Spanish teacher at Locke High School in Watts (South Central Los Angeles/gang territory/the ghetto, for those who weren’t sure). And before you quickly discount whatever I’m about to say b/c Britt teaches in L.A.U.S.D., a notoriously terrible district in a notoriously broke state, note that her school is no longer in L.A.U.S.D., but is a charter school with Green Dot. So there’s that.
And here’s what I think: full privatization would ruin these students, like Eli said. In fact, Eli’s posts have been great arguments against privatization. But vouchers would legitimately help.
Here’s the bottom line: public schools in middle class areas mostly do pretty well, but public school in urban, poor areas do pretty terribly. And before any of us go blaming it on parents, let me assure you that bad teaching is largely at fault. Britt has told me, for example, about the “Must Place” list. Must Place is a system where the worst teachers get banished to the worst schools. This is unforgivable. The worst schools, of course, are the hardest ones to teach in- so how are people sending the worst teachers to the toughest schools?
A few things are clear: (1) the teacher’s union is way, way too strong at least in California. At what other job can you perform at such a low level without getting fired? I’m sure that the union has had some benefits over time, but education can be no stronger than teachers, so tenuring bad ones is a tremendous problem. (2) Vouchers may or may not be the answer, but it seems to me that what teachers need is more accountability. Again, part of this is an issue of a union that is way too strong. But another part of it is that if you live in Watts, you end up at Locke High School. And who cares about those blacks and hispanics (seriously, there isn’t a single white kid at Britt’s school) in Watts? Certainly not middle class southern California. So Elijah, while your public education had good stuff going for it, the people you care about most (i.e. the people getting the lowest end of the stick) are making out the worst.
This is the thing: those who oppose introducing competition into schools do so because they don’t want the poor to get screwed. The problem is that the poor are getting royally screwed as is. Screwing the poor is not some fanciful, far off “if the capitalists take over” thing. It’s a current reality.
Now, my wife teaches in the ghetto because she loves her students, loves our Lord, and is passionate about being part of a solution to all of these massive problems. That is, my wife has strong internal motivation to take a really, really, really hard job (when at this point she could probably teach at almost any school because of this experience) and try to help students. But it is inconceivable to me that we would depend on people like Britt to go teach in Watts. Figuring out a way to appeal to the sinful selfishness of good teachers (e.g. by paying them more to teach in hard schools) in order to get them into the hardest schools seems to me to be a great idea. We live in a fallen world. That’s a reality. Appealing to people’s fallenness for the greater good seems a good solution.
So maybe it’s vouchers- I’m sympathetic to that. But it’s gotta be something.
Andrew Faris
Christians in Context
Faris,
I see your point, but I believe it would be a much more empowering thing to flood our resources back into the particular community. Instead of getting kids out of Watts to be educated we should ensure that we invest more into these communities with greater need.
Also, you’re proposal that we should appeal “to people’s fallenness for the greater good seems a good solution” stands at odds with the way that I think the kingdom of God functions. I know it sounds idealistic to say that the means are not justified by the ends, but I believe that whether or not something would work should not motivate us to engage. God is very powerful and gracious and he can therefore use very tragic and depraved things to accomplish good. Still, because of the effective nature of Christ’s work in establishing the Church and inaugurating the kingdom of God, I am convinced that we should NEVER sacrifice values (nor should we give in to lesser values) to bring about good. I think that if more people like Britt were invested in Watts it would make the difference. We need to teach people how to respect themselves and respect their community.
Mark,
You did not address several of the things I brought up. Could you please enlighten me? For your convenience I write them again:
I have a lot to say, but I don’t suspect I have the time to get around to all of it. First off, I will deal with my ‘J Crew & Walmart’ illustration. It was an illustration, used in a hyperbolic manner to point something out. In trying to defuse it you have appealed to Walmart’s selection of consumer electronics, which is a standard – if you buy the new MGMT album at Walmart you’re getting the same thing as if you buy it at Best Buy or Virgin Megastore. And you are right that there are many options in the capitalistic system. But the problem is that there will be no standardisation of goods (since we have effectively reduced education to a commodity) if the system becomes more privatised. If you bought a crappy RCA flatscreen TV at Circuit City when it was going out of business you ended up with a crap television. That’s a waste of a few hundred dollars. Next major electronic purchase you make will be at a better store and you will buy a better product. Thus illustrates the beauty of capitalism. But my issue is this: if a parent sends his or her child to School A only to discover after four years that School A wasn’t as good as School B, well the education was not an investment in a flatscreen TV. A real education has been lost. The less competitive schools will not ‘go out of business’ before they have caused serious damage to the opportunities of ‘consumer’ students. I believe that the vouchers will inevitably lead to more privatisation and how will any sort of academic standards be maintained in a system like that?
…
This leads me to what I consider the heart of the issue: motivations. What are our starting points? You give yourself fully over to capitalism because you say you’ve seen no better system. I believe that you have presuppositions that align with capitalism and capitalism alone, so even if you were to be faced with a system that was more beneficial to the whole of society you would not see it as such. You have a set of beliefs—as I do—concerning what is most valuable in society. What is your starting point? I believe that your starting point is ‘freedom’. Why is ‘freedom’ a deserving starting point? Why not ‘equality’ or ‘compassion’ or ‘love’? Perhaps you would say that once one has freedom the other things have the chance to follow, but what I am asking is why is ‘freedom’ first? If I was a slave I could still exercise what is necessary in the kingdom of God. Our differences are not a matter of minutia, but an entirely different framework. We even measure human progress differently. Would it be unjust for me to use my ‘freedom’ to give up said ‘freedom’? Your response might be, “Yes, but don’t impose that on other people!” Once again, I believe that if ideals were different, if people valued compassion, love and equality first and foremost the fervour for capitalism would diminish.
Sorry Elijah. Alas full-time work, grad school, a wife and 7-month old baby have contrived against me. I have been pulled away from the computer twice by my wife while I was writing both you and A.M… and was forced to send my comment without further addition. I was not trying to dodge anything.
For your first reiterated question, allow me to ask one of you. Is there a possibility that the crappy RCA flatscreen tv at Circuit City is still better than my old Hitachi 15″ with dials and rabbit ears that I grew up watching? Instead of commoditization to a lower standard would you be willing to consider any advancement through competition? You use Walmart as an example of products being produced, but I think services might be a better fit for education. Let’s take telephony. Would you say that our selection of phone service is better or worse today than even 10 years ago? Is the cheapest most unreliable service out there (I don’t know this world… so bear with me) Metro PCS?? better than the worst version available before? Could it actually be better that the old best, because people who had no phones at all or limited connectivity can now connect to almost anyone? As we have admitted we both have different frameworks from which we view things. You see competition in schools and are concerned with things going badly and kids being left behind. I see competition and imagine how good things could be. I wonder what sort of innovation, or offerings schools might come up with in order to attract and teach kids. I’m not saying it is optimistic (me) vs. pessimistic (you)… because the reverse could be true in how we view public education with you optimistic and me pessimistic. But it does come down to me thinking the worst case scenario with competition will be better than the current worst case… with which you disagree.
As to your second point I think freedom is preferable because not only can equality, compassion, and love follow after like you said, but that those three can still lead freedom if that is your preference. Meaning… in your example of the slave, yes they very well can live out a life of love, compassion, etc. despite their circumstance. But can they do it in any city they want? No, just within where they are allowed to go as a slave. So yes the gospel can be lived out, but why use a lower level as a starting point. Why not aspire to freedom if it can be had?
And let me confess a major confusion I have with some of your (and Ryan B. and others) responses to economic or political realities with “the kingdom of God”. I honestly don’t know what to do with it. How best do we set a wage floor or should we? Kingdom of God. The free market is immoral, how shall we go about our work? Kingdom of God. I can’t argue with it really (not that I’m looking to argue against the Kingdom of God) but in the world of vague explanations this is the king. As you said:
“I’m not talking about developing some programme we pitch to school boards or anything, Mark. I do think that the values of the kingdom of God are very present in very public/socialistic countries – i.e. caring for the other, valuing equality and justice. But it’s still not a matter of legislation or lobbying – the kingdom of God is apolitical. Instead I believe that the Church should be more unified in order to powerfully effect this world through the proclamation of the Gospel in words and deeds.
This might include social programmes, but the change will happen when the Church is distinctly kingdom-oriented (I believe that the ‘Church in America’ is largely non-Christian) and is demonstrating God’s love for the world. This all sounds lofty, but it is extremely practical.”
But WHAT is practical? What are we to do? How do we go about demonstrating God’s love to improve schools?
Mark,
If undemocratic autocracies with controlled economies existed in the past then why do you presume you have the right to economic freedom? The fact that people did not use to be able to live safe, dignified lives in the past does not mean that they did not deserve to. I am not talking about laughably high standards of living; I am talking about a financial and social minimum that is not degrading, the people we are talking about do not have that.
Since there is so much inequality in our current world economy then I think it’s our duty as moral human beings to consider and aid people who are suffering from extreme living conditions because we have the resources to do it. We should at least try to do it. It is immoral to ignore it and it is immoral to take advantage of their unfortunate position which is exactly what underpaid labour is to me – you mistreat someone because you’re allowed to, because they have no means to do anything about it, because they have nowhere better to go and never knew anything better. If you never had enough to eat but then someone comes and makes you work in exchange for some food but still not enough to stop you from going hungry most of the time because they need higher margins then it is surely an improvement for the worker but is it a moral thing to do for the employer?
It’s all about (at least) respectful relations between people. If a farmer relies solely on his own work and his land is infertile, no other human is exploiting him, stealing from him in fact, because it is not a fair exchange of goods if he is not even getting a living wage, although in your opinion it would be, because that is the price set by the global market. But what is unacceptable is if one human who is perfectly able to pay another human a living wage for their work does not do it. The companies who outsource parts of their business are able to do it for sure. They have a safe financial margin that would allow it: even Fairtrade produce is more expensive primarily due to the high margin for the distributors, not so much higher prices for the suppliers. But if they paid living wages, then they would get outrun by the competition… As I have stated earlier, this is part of why I’m not as enthusiastic about competition because it does not in the end put people first.
There are different kinds of immorality that we are talking about here. You are talking about singular corporate disasters like the self-destruction of Enron or the theft at Tyco. They would not have happened if the businesses had been indeed working to their own best interest (logical?). Saying that in their case the market punishes immorality is much like saying that it is immoral of a concentration camp guard to steal materials from the camp because it’s detrimental to the camp. I am saying that the concentration camp itself is immoral. To me the system in its current state rewards immoral behaviour.
Are governments moral in the market’s stead? Not really, but at least they are a representative body accountable to the society. It is their purpose to serve all of society, if they do not, if they serve a particular interest group and are found out, they are dismissed, overthrown etc., there is a whole other dimension of regulation and transparency linked to that responsibility they have to the people. Businesses do not have that: they only disclose what they choose, sometimes pay fines for their misconduct, inferior to the gains from the fraud (a simple economic cost and benefit analysis encourages them to keep doing whatever they got fined for) and over 80% of what we read about businesses is written by those businesses (I’ve worked for a PR company before, I’ve done it myself).
That is also why I approach the notions of ethical investment and businesses based on environmentalism and compassion with scepticism. I’m sure you’re right in saying that there are some companies that are founded on the right values (like Body Shop used to be when Roddick was still in charge). However, for the overwhelming majority of companies that is not the case. Environmental and social reporting is rare and massively manipulated, it’s en vogue so companies will try to get on the Dow sustainability index but they do it for the same reason as they do everything else and oftentimes by the same means i.e. manipulating information.
Besides, there is a clear power relationship between people who do environmental or social audits and the companies that they do them for, there’s a lot of courting there. If there is no transparency and indeed a lot of resistance from companies to have complete and truthful environmental/sustainability/social reporting then there must be a good reason for that and it’s no mystery what it is because we have business figured out already, we know what drives it.
This whole discussion seems to boil down to the question of motivation brought up by Elijah. Most of my argument in response to your observations was actually in support of his claim that self-interest and freedom as main motivation are at odds with Christian values.
Thanks for the follow up A.M. I’m sorry if I didn’t cover all your points in my last comment… in can get a bit long and tedious if we all try to create a point for point rebuttal.
Thank you for distilling down the discussion at the end here… and I think it is very succinct. Many of our conversations here float around this idea. My problem is that I not only don’t think we can legislate Christian values, but also for the most part don’t know if we should if actually given the chance. And I think Elijah has said similarly (maybe, don’t want to get in trouble here). And what I tend to think is that conditions that may be closest to Christian values, or closest to allowing Christian values will be more likely in a freer society, not a more controlled one. And so yes, some people will want to cheat and steal and hurt others in a capitalist economy… but I don’t see that not happening in a command one either. And the point I come back to quite often is that it seems history has shown that faith, morality, etc. suffer the most under command control.
You worry about transparency… and yet with the click of a mouse I can find out infinitely more about what a company does, who works for them, where they do their work, how much they compensate their board, where their money goes to, and on and on… then I can about any government group. You say that elected officials are accountable to the people. When, every four years? If I find out that Toyota was unethical, I have immediate access to restrict my doings with them. If you think you have anywhere near that ability with government, please let me know where you live and I will join you.
I think you and Elijah are subscribers to a belief that we are engaged in a zero-sum game…. which I think is core to many of the issues that both of you may have with business or the marketplace. If one entity is doing well, another must be suffering. But a zero-sum mentality is absurd. If Elijah writes a beautiful song and gets people to pay to hear it, did that mean he took it from someone else and they now no longer have use of that song? Clearly not. I am not knocking the suffering that is in the world, what I am knocking is the view that people take that is so antagonistic to the very system that has been most effective at eliminating that suffering. But now because someone can sit at their laptop in a luxurious coffee shop and download pictures of someone suffering in another country, well then capitalism must be at fault. If only that laptop could show people the conditions in every country, including the poorest third world, to see how we lived before industry… who knows, maybe it can.
Finally (and I’m sure I have missed comment on some of your points – but perhaps this conversation will continue), I will respond to your first statement in this latest comment; “If undemocratic autocracies with controlled economies existed in the past then why do you presume you have the right to economic freedom?” I presume this because that is how the country I currently live in was founded. It was the ideal that helped our country go from an uncivilized forest into a developed society in 200 years. I make no presumption on how other countries should run themselves. I do have immense thankfulness that this is the country I was born into and when people try to introduce instruments into it to turn it into something else… something that I don’t think is as beneficial then I react against it. I presume that because that’s what was given to me, and freedoms once given to me I am loathe to give up. I imagine that if I had grown up under Castro then maybe I would be more suspect of capitalism… although it does seem that a lot of Cubans like to make their way over here despite extraordinary risk.
I really do appreciate the debate A.M., and I sincerely hope you stick around even if in disagreement.
Mark,
I don’t have time to write an awful lot, as it is nearly 1 AM here. But I do want to quickly say that there is a strong case that morality has actually experienced a more decisive blow in a freer system – see Alan Wolfe’s Moral Freedom.
Mark,
I’m pretty discouraged with this thread. I am not suggesting that you whole-heartedly adopt my views as if they are especially worthwhile, but I guess this hearkens back to Greg’s comment a couple of months ago. Let me say once again that the kingdom of God is apolitical and there isn’t just one way of legislation. The kingdom of God is conversant and there is room for your conversation too. That’s why I acknowledge your reasoning and when I appeal to things I do not do it in a heavy-handed ‘capitalism is always bad’ tone. I do not believe that my tone gives any indicator of the unique strengths of capitalism either (Elijah doesn’t hate all of capitalism and Mark loves it, so it is good. Mark disapproves of any regulation and Elijah doesn’t love it, but he thinks some regulation is good. Therefore, because of the sum of affections, capitalism is better).
“As to your second point I think freedom is preferable because not only can equality, compassion, and love follow after like you said, but that those three can still lead freedom if that is your preference.”
Why is freedom your starting point?
I believe that an over-assertion of ‘freedom’ can be detrimental to a realistic view of the world and our place in it. I have seen in this very blog that you seem to value ‘freedom’ more than Church tradition in at least the case of what I have diagnosed as ‘neo-Pelagianism’. This issue isn’t what I would consider the most critical issue in Christian thought, but it is important to understand that if ‘freedom’ is valued more than what Christ seems to indicate should be at the centre of Christian’s lives (LOVE GOD; LOVE PEOPLE, FULL STOP – these are the primary principles of the ‘non-concrete’ kingdom of God) can be very detrimental to our entire experience of God and the Christian religion.
Let me point out that A.M. is not a socialist or an extremist. I point this out because I want to emphasise that A.M. has the ability to analyse things critically from many different angles. Her experience, education and expertise lead her to a well-rounded understanding of a very dynamic global economy. Also, to accuse us of zero-sum assumptions isn’t fair. Neither one of us hold to that view, instead we say that capitalism creates an environment which makes it easier for some to have and others to not, generally due to the selfish ambitions of many capitalists.
Do you believe in zero regulation? Should anything be done about monopolies? Capitalism seems to look more and more like a strong central government in the end…
As for the ‘kingdom of God’ question, I am currently writing a series at Lost in the Cloud that I’d love for you to check out/engage with when you get time. A quick kingdom answer to at least one of your questions, ‘how do we improve schools?’ We do not improve schools in impoverished communities by removing students from those communities. Instead the kingdom response is that of Andrew’s wife Britt – engage and become a part of the community, bringing the ideals and values of the very real and effective kingdom of God. That’s just one practical application. There are many.
Elijah, I want to tell you that I find it very difficult to converse with you on these types of threads. I have much to say about all of the ideas here but I give up immediately with you because every time you respond to me, no matter how nuanced and fair I try to be, I end up feeling insulted. I feel that you never concede any ground to me (or anyone else who challenges you), and I do not sense a spirit of dialogue and humility and but rather one of pontification. I only tell you this so that you understand why I almost never respond to your posts and why I’ve been so silent on this thread. You have some great thoughts that I would love to engage with but I have concluded that to attempt to dialogue with you is to invite insult.
I do not believe that vouchers could eliminate all inequities, nor is that the goal of vouchers. No matter how much the government intervenes with commerce and education there will always be some who have more than others. I do not believe that the government can create utopia, and every attempt at it historically has had disastrous effects. What vouchers would do is give parents more choices than they currently have. If they want to stay at their local school and attempt to bring about the Kingdom of God there, they can. If they want to use their voucher to put their child in a school that is better suited to their abilities or talents, they could. (Imagine in your case if it was discovered that you had artistic talent but your local school had a poor art program, while a private school nearby had an arts focus. Vouchers would have been a great benefit to you in that case). In the process, schools would have more incentive to run their schools well, since parents would have more choice in the matter. I believe this might create better schools, and more niches (technical education, focus on arts, classical approach, etc.) which I think would be a good direction.
Like I said before, I identify with both sides of the coin here but I don’t understand why many are so unwilling to even entertain the idea of vouchers when it seems we have so little to lose in the gamble. I don’t believe vouchers are a silver bullet, but I think they’re a great idea that’s worth a try.
Pete,
I honestly feel like you and I have a lot of common ground on threads and I do appreciate your input. I am really sorry that my comments have insulted you, that is most certainly not my intention. Your statement is very sweeping, so I feel like there is some fundamental flaw in the entirety of my intellect and that my contributions to CAI have been entirely negative. I don’t really know how to respond to this except that I hope not to make you feel this way in the future.
With regard to your perspective on vouchers here, I would totally agree with you. I believe that they could be a good thing, but I also believe that we need to push for ideologies that strengthen urban/lower income communities, whether that is incorporated in public school attendance or either public/private school attendance with a voucher.
I decided to do some reading in the CAI archives. I realised a lot of my tone was rather offensive and I’m really sorry for that. Still, I would say that I have not always been negative:
12 November 2008 on ‘Palin Derangement Syndrome’
25 November 2008 on ‘Old Music…2008 C.E.’
6 December 2008 on ‘(Old) record reviews’
3 February 2009 on ‘What’s Wrong with Socialism?’
11 February 2009 on ‘Random thoughts about Barack Obama’
25 March 2009 on ‘Topolánek thinks Obama’s plan stinks, what about you?’
2 May 2009 on ‘Band Biographies’
21 July 2009 on ‘High Times in California’
26 August 2009 on ‘Good Riddance’
26 November 2009 on ‘Best Albums of 2009 Revisited’
9 December 2009 on ‘Street Sweeping Woes’
2 January 2010 on ’21 Artifacts…’
22 February 2010 on ‘Ahhhhh, Honesty…’
28 February 2010 on ‘YO in trouble’
On this very thread:
Pete, while you accuse me “never [conceding] any ground to me (or anyone else who challenges you), and I do not sense a spirit of dialogue and humility and but rather one of pontification”, I would like to point out that I am very willing to consider other ideas. I am curious as to whether or not in our CAI comment threads you have changed your view or have conceded more ground to me than I might to you. While I’ve made a lot of ungracious mistakes in my comments, something I cannot excuse and I own, I just don’t get the feeling that your assessment of the entirety of my comments was very fair, especially since I often only hear contention from you. I don’t assume that you’re a bad guy or that you don’t care about people and I don’t assume that you think you know it all. We are Criticism As Inspiration.
I feel the need to apologise to everyone contributing to this thread if my words have been destructive as opposed to constructive. I assure you that while my tone might suggest otherwise, I am not concerned with showing off how ‘clever’ or ‘smart’ I am.
My entire conviction on this issue concerns the fear of the possibility that the marginalised will become further marginalised. I fear the idea that money will be leaving impoverished communities. I have thoughtfully read responses to my comments, but I still don’t feel as if my fear is unfounded. I know that if vouchers were distributed en masse they would not necessarily need to pull money out of these communities, but it would be a real possibility. I don’t want the poor to get poorer, and by that I am not assuming a zero sum game.
Elijah, I don’t believe that your contributions have been all negative. Like I said, I think you have great thoughts, I just dislike the way you engage those thoughts when I attempt to discuss them with you. For example, in my response to Mark, I validated your comments by saying that I identify with both sides of the coin and I understand your argument. Part of your response was “The problem is that when kids from North Long Beach start going to better schools in Los Alamitos, the wealthier families, with the vouchers and the means to do more on top of the voucher, will send their kids to the more esteemed and expensive schools. The better teachers will go where they are paid more and the scenario we are in now, with apathetic teachers in uncompetitive schools, will shift exclusively to those who cannot afford the edge that competitive will provide.” It frustrates me so much the way you state this as if it is accepted fact. I know you’re not trying to be aggressive or insulting, but the tone comes across as strident and all-knowing. It’s basically the same frustration I shared with you before- an appeal to authority. Then you accuse me of a categorical mistake of opposing public funding of arts, which is not the same thing as opposing art programs in public schools by the way. If you want to know if I oppose art programs in schools, why don’t you ask me? I don’t. Then you conclude by saying “All of this to say that the public school is a matter of attitude”- do you forget Elijah that I’m a public school teacher? Is it possible I might know something about this that you can’t teach me? Then you say that “If vouchers were the norm then my public school would be marginalised, I wouldn’t have had enough money on top of the voucher to go to a high quality school, as I demonstrated with the J Crew and Walmart example.” Again, this is stated as accepted fact, when there is absolutely no way that vouchers would have kept you from going to the school you went to. All vouchers would have done is allowed you to go to a different school with a better arts program if you chose. I suppose your argument is that vouchers would have negatively influenced your school, but I still don’t understand why. Why would your school have become a Walmart school? Why wouldn’t your school become a J-crew school? Many of the most elite schools in this area (CAMS, Whitney, Poly’s PACE) are public schools. Lastly, you never validated or responded to my basic point that vouchers seem worth a try. That is what I mean when I say your comments have a spirit of pontification.
But honestly, I’m more frustrated with the way you’ve responded to Mark. I thought Mark was so gracious in his first response to A.M., then you jumped all over him for not responding to every point. Granted, this was not directed at me, but it certainly didn’t make me feel like attempting to put my two cents in. I don’t want to get into the middle of you and Mark- Mark can fend for himself- but with every comment you posted in this thread I became more and more incensed with your responses to him and less interested in trying to join the conversation. Like I said before, I’m only telling you this because I would like to be able to engage with you in these comments and not feel frustrated all the time. I don’t care that we disagree- that’s what criticism as inspiration is all about. I would just like to be able to disagree with grace and humility. To the degree I have failed in this I do apologize. I admit that I haven’t conceded much ground to you either, but I can honestly say that I get so frustrated with the tone of your comments that it makes it very difficult for me to seriously engage your points, which is why I usually just don’t respond at all. I don’t think you’re a bad guy- I actually like you a lot when we’re not arguing ideas. I’m only telling you this because I want to feel freer to engage with you in the future, and not resentfully ignore all of your posts and comments.
Just saw your apology, thanks. Like I said my goal is not to see you grovel but to feel comfortable engaging with you when we disagree. I hope we can accomplish this in the future.
Pete,
I’m sorry to keep this going.
With regard to my comments on CAI in general, I have assumed that I can state my arguments in the same way that I hear (read) you and Mark state them. I don’t think that I’m appealing to any sort of all-knowingness of self-centred authority, I just am throwing in my arguments in my comments because that’s what I expect any reader to understand: these are merely my comments. I really think that while I have not used very gracious tone at times you are generally misreading my tone in comments. If we were speaking this would come out more clearly, hopefully, but in written comments on a blog it is very difficult to discern how something is being said. I will try to be more conscious of this.
Part of the frustrations I am responding to have to do with not feeling understood. In fact, even in your response above I don’t feel as if my arguments have been understood. I don’t even know if it would be fruitful to try to explain what I meant by certain things, but I will try with this one issue.
Maybe I’m mistaken about this, but if vouchers became a tool to boost competition among schools the better schools would end up being the more expensive schools in order to pay for superior education. Although programmes like PACE and CAMS are incredible public local choices, if more money was going to the private schools via vouchers and less to those public programmes, PACE and CAMS would become less prominent. I understand that this is not necessarily the case – vouchers enable the student to theoretically choose which school they want to attend and it need not be private.
Still I suspect that scenario is very likely because parents who can afford private school currently will be able to pay for private school with a voucher and-then-some. This would mean that the student who can only afford what the voucher covers cannot actually attend any school of their choice. This is very much like the perspective on the healthcare issue: those who can afford better service should be able to receive it. I simply don’t ascribe to such a view because I don’t see why people who have less should be excluded from the best services in a developed society. I believe you’ve suggested that if these things were made public no one would receive good service – everyone would receive mediocre service. I believe that as a community people are capable of being very constructive without the motivation of economic competition.
Back to my original comments, the reason why I would be going to the lower-end school in a competitive model is because the higher-end schools, the schools that get the most funding and can afford the better teachers, would potentially be charging more than the lower-end schools. I came from a large and rather poor family, so the lower-end school would be my only option in that scenario even with a voucher.
I do not believe that the scenario I have painted is necessarily how it must work out, I just want to avoid the possibility that it might work out that way.
I don’t know if I’ve communicated that very well, but I hope that makes a little sense.
Elijah, if we must keep it going then we must. First off, I agree that tone is difficult to discern in this format, and I agree that I would probably find your arguments much more palatable if we were speaking face to face. I’m sure that I’ve interpreted many of your comments in a less than charitable manner, and I apologize for that. But I also agree that your being more conscious of this issue will help tremendously, which is the only reason I brought it to your attention.
I think I understand your argument better- you’re thinking that if vouchers were the norm, you would not have been able to afford whatever public local schools you attended if they became J-crew, and would have gotten a lousy education if they became Walmart. Do I basically have that right?
If I do in fact understand your case then I think you are misunderstanding the voucher proposal. As Mark pointed out in one of the very early comments, the voucher system does not mean privatizing public schools. Wilson High School, for example, would not suddenly become a for-profit entity, jacking up tuition to line administrators’ pockets, turning away poor kids who live across the street and forcing them to attend Compton. Public schools would remain wholly under the control of the government, which would dictate the tuition it would charge. My understanding is that this tuition would simply be the value of a voucher- no more, no less. The voucher system, as I understand it, would not enable a public school to turn away anyone in its district who wanted to attend. The competition on the part of the schools would not be to charge higher tuition but to keep enrollment up, because if a school is notoriously bad then parents will elect not to send their students there, and bad schools would lose their funding. Public schools would not have any ability to decide they’d like to charge a little extra on top of the voucher amount or create new capacity to jam more kids in the school- they would still be restricted by class size regulations, and all the other regulations that go along with being a public entity. In other words, the incentive is simply to keep enrollment at a rate that allows the school to keep its funding (and perhaps attract the best students), not become profitable.
(I just did a little more research, and I think that vouchers might only be issued to parents requesting them for the purpose of sending their kids to private schools, while those who elect to stay in the public system would not need to bother- I’m unclear on the specifics, but I’m 100% sure that public schools would not become private under the proposal)
If there is a more radical voucher proposal that is different than the one I speak of then I’m not aware of it, but please correct me if I’m misinformed. I certainly haven’t heard of anything along the lines of what you’re suggesting.
My guess is that whatever schools you attended would be improved by the voucher system, and they would have had no right (or incentive) to turn away a bright student like yourself.
I think there is a better criticism of the voucher system though that no one has brought up (I’m waiting for Mike to say it, but I’m guessing he doesn’t feel like wading through all 30 comments to figure out if it’s already been said), and that is the way that schools might go about attracting students to keep attendance up. The fear is that they might stoop to the lowest common denominator to attract students, like advertising a lax dress code or low academic standards (I could see a movie emerging from this context about a school that goes all out to attract students with topless lunches and booze in the cafeteria- Will Ferrel could be the principle). This concern holds a little more weight with me, but I think that schools will ultimately be deemed attractive or unattractive to parents and students based on test scores and teacher quality, and lax standards do nothing to help in those departments.
Pete,
I mean no offense, but I really do not feel understood by you. Here are a couple of things that you’ve assumed regarding my position that I simply do not ascribe to:
1) That public schools will become private – I did not say that this is the case.
2) That I assume public school tuition will increase – I also do not think that this is necessarily the case, but rather that private school tuition will most certainly increase to an amount beyond what the voucher can cover (since the voucher would be a fixed amount, the amount that would have been given to the public school, right?). The private school, to remain competitive while receiving a stimulus from the new flooding of vouchers in its system, could most certainly charge more for education in order to hire better teachers.
This would mean that what you and Mark have been saying (Mark – “Public schools will compete with private schools for the funds coming from the vouchers. Ideally the competition will improve public schools in addition to providing choice to parents”; Pete – “What vouchers would do is give parents more choices than they currently have”; “In the process, schools would have more incentive to run their schools well, since parents would have more choice in the matter.”) might not be true.
I’m just not convinced that the choice will exist. Theoretically I have the ‘freedom’ to buy a Mercedes, but I most certainly cannot. Does that make sense? I am afraid of poorer communities getting the shaft, essentially. This is commonly my fear with capitalism because while it is not inevitably the case, it is most certainly one possibility.
Once again, you are far more educated on these issues, but I do believe that my concerns are legitimate and I don’t really feel satisfied with any responses to them (this is not said with arrogance, but in the same tone as Mark’s original post: “I’d love to hear the thoughts against vouchers, because from where I’m coming from I don’t see them.”)
Pete,
Also, I recall my comments,
I apologise for making it seem as if you opposed art programmes in public schools. I should’ve been more specific with my claim regarding your opposition to the NEA – Have you said that you oppose this or am I mistaken? I know that you’re a public school teacher and you have a unique insight into the public school system that I do not have. I want to point out that while the existence of art programmes in public schools are not entirely contingent with the NEA, the endowment does make our public school art programmes better/worthwhile. Many examples of this are found in the 2008 NEA Annual Report. I am sensitive to this issue not only because of how my public art education has directly benefited from NEA funding (and because of lack of public funding the public school art programme I was a part of has been greatly reduced), but also, as you might not know, I have experience teaching art to disabled students in both public and private schools by way of public and private grants. In fact, reductions in public funding for the arts eliminated my position.
I was making a point that art has been marginalised in society because it is perceived as less important than other fields, such as mathematics. I disagree with this perception and I believe that it is a result of viewing education as a commodity—preparing students for careers—rather than a tool for the improvement of character and overall well-being. This particular issue is not especially pertinent to our voucher discussion, but I do believe that we will continue to see a lot of marginalisation of art programmes as a result of the ‘commodification’ of education.
Elijah, I think I get it better now- private schools would have such an advantage that public schooling would be undermined. I guess your thinking is that private schools would have more money and could thus pay higher teacher salary, attracting all of the good teachers away from public schools. So in your case, you feel that your school would have become Walmart because all the good teachers would have taken higher paying jobs at private schools, since voucher money would make private schools more profitable. Do I have it right now?
Pete, thanks for taking the time to respond (I know that mid-week is not a very free time for teachers), that is essentially my thinking. I want to emphasise that I don’t think vouchers will inevitably make things worse-off for poorer communities, but I see that as a real possibility. I would rather see more teachers like you and Britt (Andrew’s wife), people who are interested in the well-being of their students on a deeper level and not just a paycheck.
In either situation, whether the voucher option was really taken advantage of by a large number of people and causing the worst-case scenario I have suggested as a possibility, the educational system (both private and public) could still benefit from an infiltration of virtuous ideologies.
What do you think about that worst-case scenario? I am really open to (and have consistently been open to even though I did not make that clear in my tone) learning about how this worst-case scenario would not happen/could be effectively avoided. It simply seems like a real possibility to me.
Elijah, I believe your concern is valid, though I do think it might be overly pessimistic. I agree that voucher money would raise tuition in private schools- simply put, voucher money would increase demand for private education, which in turn would raise the cost. Whether or not private schools would rush to raise teacher pay I think is debatable, and I’m not convinced they’d be in a hurry to replace their current staff with former public school teachers (but it’s possible).
But I think there’s another, very positive scenario that could play out. Increased demand almost always results in increased selection of product, which in this case would mean more private schools. I think it’s very feasible that new private schools would pop up with niche focuses. I believe many of these schools, in order to attract students, would only charge the minimum voucher amount (since to charge more would be to compete with existing private schools). I think the Kingdom of God can look like a lot of different things- imagine if you used your passion for kids and art to start a private school that charged the voucher amount and focused on art and character development. Or imagine if Grace LB started a classical high school.
Lastly, I agree with you that math should not be valued over art in public schooling- I actually think that many students benefit much more from art class than math class (I actually think higher level math is a waste of time for at least 60% of students). But, as you note, this disintegration of art programs is already under way with the existing system we have, and it’s happening all over (same with music, wood shop, mechanics shop, etc). I believe that a voucher system could possibly be just the elixir that art needs in schools. That might be overly optimistic, but as I stated in the beginning, I think it’s worth a shot.
I’m sorry it took me so long to properly understand your case- I should have asked more questions before jumping into debate.
Pete,
I think we see eye-to-eye. Thanks for taking the time to write thoughtful responses. I see your scenario and I think it could be a good thing. I didn’t think it was impossible for this to work out well and I do believe that if we are to do this for the students/schools and not exclusively for the sake of economic gain it could work out well. This means that if you and I decided to start a private school together we could choose to do so in a more marginalised neighborhood and minister to those local students. I still think that getting better teachers in lower-class public schools is a good idea.
I guess I’m still a little hung up because of what I understand concerning the role of self-interest in classical capitalistic thought. This is a conversation that has been had before and I think we generally just end up in two different camps – one camp claims that people usually make the virtuous choice with their freedom, the other claims that people usually make the greedy choice with their freedom. Granted these are two caricatures of our views, but I think if we stretch ourselves a bit we can probably fit into one of the two. Maybe we’ll change our views on this some day, maybe we won’t. Either way, we can still agree that as members of the kingdom of God we should do what we believe will confront society with the values of that kingdom.
Please let me know if I have misunderstood your view.
Elijah, you’re understanding me perfectly, thanks. I agree with your final point that it comes down to two fundamentally different views of self-interest and freedom. I will briefly attempt to summarize my views on this since I don’t believe I’ve ever explicitly stated them.
I believe that people will serve their own self-interest in whatever kind of society they find themselves in (I include myself here- even though I aspire to be an agent of the Kingdom of God, I know that I am fallen. Then again, I do not believe that Christ calls us to deny our self-interest but rather to reexamine what is in fact in our best interest. When he said “What good is it to gain the whole world yet forfeit your soul” it would seem that he was making an appeal to self-interest- he was asking us to consider what’s truly in our best interest- earthy wealth and fame or obedience to Christ. I firmly believe that submission to Christ is in our best interest, and we should thus pursue this interest). The difference for me then is not that capitalism promotes self interest while socialism promotes selflessness, but rather that capitalism channels self interest towards the good of society, providing positive incentive to work, innovate, get an education, be productive etc. while socialism creates perverse incentives- why work when the government will take care of you? But I do not believe that a government can do anything about our fallen nature and proclivity to serve our own interests- I only believe that the government can direct that self-interest. Within any government framework there is room for acts of mercy and participation in the Kingdom of God (Christians in the capitalist society can choose to work for the good of society out of God’s calling- like Andrew’s wife- Christians in the socialist structure can choose to work hard out of a calling to God in spite of the opportunity to be lazy. Then again I don’t believe that serving our own self-interest is always at odds with God’s Kingdom. For example, I teach out of a desire to feed my family, but in the process I get to know a lot of kids and have a positive influence in their life), so I do not believe that either system has a monopoly on Kingdom values. But as I’ve argued before, these values seem most vibrant in free societies, as evidenced (just one example) of the enormous amount of generous giving in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. I don’t really want to get too epic here since we’re getting into really big ideas, but I just wanted to give you a basic idea of why I come down the way I do on this last point you brought up. Does my reasoning make sense?
Absolutely and amen.
Can we zoom out and look at this discussion through the lens of the principles America was founded on? I’ll set aside my personal preference for vouchers (I have a conflict of interest, since I pay for 3 kids to go to private school).
America was not founded on a desire to use the power of the state to satisfy the needs of the people. I think that’s generally the concept behind the EU constitiution and many people’s concept of modern government worldwide, but The United States is different; Our country is founded upon the concept of individual liberty, that our individual rights are inalienable because they come from God, and that the government’s scope should be limited to a very few necessities.
Public education is not one of these necessities.
This is a radical concept in 2010, but it seems to me that if we eliminated public schools (and their associated confiscatory tax-based public funding) we would have better educational, social, and economic outcomes.
My Father paid his own way through Catholic school with a paper route. He had a second paper route to purchase clothes with so that he could fit in with the kids whose parents could afford to pay tuition. His Dad was an enlisted man in the Navy and they had 6 kids, so they couldn’t afford to pay for private school. The local parish ensured that they paid what they could afford, and covered the rest. My Mom went to Catholic school on a need-based scholarship because her Dad never had a social security number or Drivers license, and never held a real job. He bought and sold cars and did body work and other odd jobs to get by. When he died (at age 46) they were 6 months behind on the rent. Both of my parents graduated from St. Anthony High School in Long Beach, got jobs, and paid their own way through College. My Mom and Dad got married at age 21 and immediately had to support my Uncle, who was 13 years old at the time. A short while later they had to support me. All 3 of them made their way through school on their own and graduated with Bachelor’s degrees. I share this to prove that even the poorest children in America can get a good education without the need for a public school system, thanks to Churches and other charitable organizations.
Private Charity is our calling as Christians, and getting the government involved in education removes all moral good from the act of funding the education of others. It eliminates the accountability associated with private charity. How many public school parents get a call from the principal when their child fails a test saying “shame on you for not working hard when you’re getting a free education!” I know my Uncle’s 6th grade principal made that call, it’s a story that caused our family great shame at the time, but gets repeated often to remind my brother and I how easy we had it.
Through the lens of individual liberty, education is not a right, but it is a necessity which should be supported for those who cannot afford it by those who can and choose to do so. Taking from some against their will to give to others who do not appreciate the great gift of a free education is a moral evil.
It is also an inefficient system, as proven by the fact that private schools traditionally have better results for lower costs than comparable public schools.
Finally, allowing the government to usurp the power of the church, private charity, and the local community limits the effectiveness of educators, because they cannot call parents or students to account for failing to do their best.
I realize that this is an idealistic viewpoint, but I think our kids deserve the best education that we can afford to provide, and our current system does not seem to be remotely close to that ideal.
It took me two days to read this post and all the comments.
I wish I had something more intelligent to write, but all I got is:
I’m tired and this sucked the life out of me.
However, it has been an interesting dialogue, to say the least. This is why I keep coming back to your blog…
Wow, being a parent and a public school teacher who serves a semi-administrative function, I would have liked to have chimed in on this one. But thirty-nine lengthy comments later, I would think you guys covered it all by now. Skimming through, it appears that you have and then some. Oh well, maybe I’ll write my own voucher post sometime.
[…] for far too long. And that is why I am fiercely anti-union (see here, here, here, here, and here if you don’t believe me). I don’t want to see our amazing country ever reduced to a […]