PJ Media

One note: what I should have written was that at Penn Alexander, about 80% of the students score as proficient or advanced in math and reading. As for “a genuinely impressive success that has everyone deeply impressed” – well, my only defense is that it’s a number of hours ahead of the site’s timestamp here, and I was getting very sleepy . . .

“Futhermore, opponents to school choice voucher programs are largely made up of two groups: First, are the incompetent twits that make up the teachers union. Second are the elitist snobs . . . ”

The 2006 PDK/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes towards public schools found 60% opposing vouchers. (And voters in Utah just defeated voucher legislation, although I don’t know the specific politics there). They’re not all “incompetent twits” or “elitist snobs”. The same poll also found that out of the two following options, 71% of respondents favored reforming the existing school system, with only 24% advocating radical change. (I suspect that the latter position would strongly correlate with a set of others that lately poll in the mid-high twenties/low thirties, but can’t say for sure). Of course, this is measuring public opinion, and not the objective merits of any program – but as such suggests that the overwhelming majority of the country supports improving traditional schools, not charging off on flights of voucher fancy.

“To the opponents of universal voucher programs I say, “SHOVE IT.” ”

I have to say, Mark, your comment is certainly the most lively. And I agree that universal vouchers would be the way to go if we were to go for vouchers – in other words, that every school would have to accept the voucher as full payment.

The problem, as you pretty much see, is that there would be a revolt – as Justin mentioned above, the whole point is that the (at least relatively) affluent act “in order to increase the aggregate advantage of THEIR capital and turn it into HUMAN capital for their children..” Taking in a few token scholarship kids, bright and well-behaved, supported by parents who have the knowledge and tenacity to get the very best for their kids – it warms the heart and looks great on brochures. Beyond that . . . my guess is that you’d see massive gate-keeping, and flight to institutions physically beyond the reach of that element.

Again, it gets back to not actually understanding the problems. Economics 101 isn’t enough – you need a fair helping of sociology and cultural values as well. That’s why McArdle ultimately misses the mark with “The fundamental problem with the school, and the difference between it and the affluent schools (even in the same district), is that the parents are not the customers . . . [advocates] miss the crucial difference [in higher performing public schools] the customers of their school are the middle class parents“. I guess she’s so used to seeing folks as interchangeable customers, in straightforward relationships of exchange, that she’s blinded to the other aspects.