>If, as Perez claims is the case in Atlanta, the state monopoly is the only
>existing "choice" and is providing a bad system then trying a "market"
>alternative strikes me as being reasonable in "actually existing American
>capitalism." It seems unlikely that the Atlanta school authorities are
>going to be changing their ways anytime soon and certainly have no motivation
>to help the very families who need it most, especially those who lack
>mobility. A voucher system could possibly motivate such parents to
>investigate the options available to them. And why do we have to wait for a
>socialist utopia to try to improve schooling a bit?
One of the major reasons urban schools suck is that they don't have enough money. Mayor Rudy sends his kids to a private school that spends twice what NYC schools do per pupil, and George Soros sends his kids to one that spends four times as much. Vouchers are a diversion from this fundamental issue. Like I said, the thinking is pure neoclassical economics: the present system is a monopoly; deregulating it and creating a "market" in education will ensure the more effective allocation of capital, and therefore better educational "returns." No more funding would be needed. But more funding *is* needed. No doubt there's waste and inefficiency in public school spending, but not enough to make the difference between good schools and crappy schools.
Since when do markets tend to reduce polarization?
Doug