First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Education Vouchers
954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / San Diego, CA.
Offline
Posted 1/7/08

projectcedric wrote:


Apothem wrote:



In response to the first paragraph, all of that is already supplied and accounted for in each voucher. You also have to consider after all the administrative bodies from school districts(each being paid 80,000+ dollars a year minimum) and state bureaucrats no longer become part of the voucher system, it adds a HUGE bonus to the overall price per voucher as you no longer have to pay for them. Thus giving them more monetary value? If I'm using the word correctly. :P


Well the problem with social costs and benefits is that there is no way to appraise them. In other words, there's no way you can tell how much they are actually valued. You may say there is 80,000 dollar extra but you don't really know if that's too much, too little, or just enough. There is no way of arriving at a value that would correctly..um.. valuate a certain social cost or benefit.


Apothem wrote:
In response to your second paragraph....what? o_0 How would the social benefits be more than the cost? Can you explain that? Sorry for not understanding what you mean. It's best to give an example. But if your too lazy to give one, I understand.



Okay.. there are direct costs and benefits right, determined by costs of production/labour/service and satisfaction to the students. They pretty much cancel each other out when monetary price is determined.

Then there are social costs and benefits. If there are more social costs than benefits, like in Education.. doesn't really cause pollution, or stress, or turmoil, but instead it helps in the literacy of the public and [insert what other good things about education that you can think of here], then the overall benefit is already more than the cost.



Thanks again. Lets go back...


projectcedric wrote:
If the social benefits of education is taken into consideration, the overall benefits should be more than the cost (cost minus benefits), we say that therefore that this good is "over priced" and the actual price should be lower. But the private producers will no longer be willing to produce such goods if the price is lowered because if they do, it will be at a loss. In the short run, a loss can still be sustainable if we are talking large scale and scale of economies help in the long run. But a loss in the long run will cause the industry to crumble.


You are assuming way to much. You can't say that the social benefits would outweigh the the cost if we don't know how much the benefits will add up to. The Vouchers should pay for everything plus more(I assume this) after the middle man is destroyed in order to expand.
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/08

Apothem wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


Apothem wrote:



In response to the first paragraph, all of that is already supplied and accounted for in each voucher. You also have to consider after all the administrative bodies from school districts(each being paid 80,000+ dollars a year minimum) and state bureaucrats no longer become part of the voucher system, it adds a HUGE bonus to the overall price per voucher as you no longer have to pay for them. Thus giving them more monetary value? If I'm using the word correctly. :P


Well the problem with social costs and benefits is that there is no way to appraise them. In other words, there's no way you can tell how much they are actually valued. You may say there is 80,000 dollar extra but you don't really know if that's too much, too little, or just enough. There is no way of arriving at a value that would correctly..um.. valuate a certain social cost or benefit.


Apothem wrote:
In response to your second paragraph....what? o_0 How would the social benefits be more than the cost? Can you explain that? Sorry for not understanding what you mean. It's best to give an example. But if your too lazy to give one, I understand.



Okay.. there are direct costs and benefits right, determined by costs of production/labour/service and satisfaction to the students. They pretty much cancel each other out when monetary price is determined.

Then there are social costs and benefits. If there are more social costs than benefits, like in Education.. doesn't really cause pollution, or stress, or turmoil, but instead it helps in the literacy of the public and [insert what other good things about education that you can think of here], then the overall benefit is already more than the cost.



Thanks again. Lets go back...


projectcedric wrote:
If the social benefits of education is taken into consideration, the overall benefits should be more than the cost (cost minus benefits), we say that therefore that this good is "over priced" and the actual price should be lower. But the private producers will no longer be willing to produce such goods if the price is lowered because if they do, it will be at a loss. In the short run, a loss can still be sustainable if we are talking large scale and scale of economies help in the long run. But a loss in the long run will cause the industry to crumble.


You are assuming way to much. You can't say that the social benefits would outweigh the the cost if we don't know how much the benefits will add up to. The Vouchers should pay for everything plus more(I assume this) after the middle man is destroyed in order to expand.


The direct costs and benefits already cancel themselves out when you determine the price. That is the price of your voucher. So direct costs = direct benefits. That's how you arrive at the price. Here, we are talking about money.

We do not know how much will they add up to (in dollars) but we do know that education generates more social benefits than costs. Its not assumption, it's a general fact. Here, we are no longer talking about money. That's why you cannot say that the voucher will pay for everything because we do not know exactly the monetary value of the benefits that outweigh the cost. In this case social benefit > social cost.

So you combine the first paragraph with the second paragraph and overall, benefit is greater than cost.
954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / San Diego, CA.
Offline
Posted 1/7/08

projectcedric wrote:


Apothem wrote:


Transportation would be a problem? Yes that is true. More than likely the "good schools" would come from more upper class areas. But if those schools see that theres a huge cash cow of kids from the poor part of town, that would be more than enough incentive to get a bus out there to get them. But then this would drive up costs would it now? Yes it would. But if would take into fact that if they spread the cost between all those kids for one bus. It would be very minimal.


And then the main concern here now is that we don't make it complicated as much as possible. Even if we take your suggestion at this particular situation, it becomes discriminatory. We are raised with questions such as: Why do the poor kids need to travel daily at the cost of convenience of the rich kids? Will that in itself affect their performance and therefore, education? What happens when you mix fast learners and slow learners together in the same school? Who will cater for the transportation? Will that mean that the transportation industry will grow at the cost of something else? Can the producers meet up the demands for the transport service? Will it add to the over pollution and traffic congestion?

Those are all social costs in themselves that must be taken into consideration. And now the state becomes no longer just concerned with the economics of education, but a lot more other things as well. That's why its always a prerogative to take the simplest route possible, all things made equal.


Well obviously it is going to be complicated. Not as complicated as before were every decision had to go through a selective proses by a board of education from the district if not the state or federal bureaucracies. Which in it's self is a waste of time and money. Whereas each school and quickly decide what they need to do when they need to do it within their own system.

To answer some of your questions in the first paragraph...Why do the poor kids need to travel daily at the cost of convenience of the rich kids? That's just the way things go. Adding a social class gap in a school is not a bad thing. Mixing the two would be a great social experience of the kids for years to come. Will that in itself affect their performance and therefore, education? It will in good and bad ways but it will build their social experience. What happens when you mix fast learners and slow learners together in the same school? This happens in every social class. There are fast learners in Poor societies and vice-versa. Who will cater for the transportation? The school will. Will that mean that the transportation industry will grow at the cost of something else? If they even want to use them in the first place. In public schools every so often schools pay for new buses. Now the money will be put into vouchers so they would be able to pay for it. Will it add to the over pollution and traffic congestion? The schools cannot entirely control this. Depends on what Bus manufactures create. The public would push them to make a environmentally safe bus.
954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / San Diego, CA.
Offline
Posted 1/7/08

projectcedric wrote:


Apothem wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


Apothem wrote:



In response to the first paragraph, all of that is already supplied and accounted for in each voucher. You also have to consider after all the administrative bodies from school districts(each being paid 80,000+ dollars a year minimum) and state bureaucrats no longer become part of the voucher system, it adds a HUGE bonus to the overall price per voucher as you no longer have to pay for them. Thus giving them more monetary value? If I'm using the word correctly. :P


Well the problem with social costs and benefits is that there is no way to appraise them. In other words, there's no way you can tell how much they are actually valued. You may say there is 80,000 dollar extra but you don't really know if that's too much, too little, or just enough. There is no way of arriving at a value that would correctly..um.. valuate a certain social cost or benefit.


Apothem wrote:
In response to your second paragraph....what? o_0 How would the social benefits be more than the cost? Can you explain that? Sorry for not understanding what you mean. It's best to give an example. But if your too lazy to give one, I understand.



Okay.. there are direct costs and benefits right, determined by costs of production/labour/service and satisfaction to the students. They pretty much cancel each other out when monetary price is determined.

Then there are social costs and benefits. If there are more social costs than benefits, like in Education.. doesn't really cause pollution, or stress, or turmoil, but instead it helps in the literacy of the public and [insert what other good things about education that you can think of here], then the overall benefit is already more than the cost.



Thanks again. Lets go back...


projectcedric wrote:
If the social benefits of education is taken into consideration, the overall benefits should be more than the cost (cost minus benefits), we say that therefore that this good is "over priced" and the actual price should be lower. But the private producers will no longer be willing to produce such goods if the price is lowered because if they do, it will be at a loss. In the short run, a loss can still be sustainable if we are talking large scale and scale of economies help in the long run. But a loss in the long run will cause the industry to crumble.


You are assuming way to much. You can't say that the social benefits would outweigh the the cost if we don't know how much the benefits will add up to. The Vouchers should pay for everything plus more(I assume this) after the middle man is destroyed in order to expand.


The direct costs and benefits already cancel themselves out when you determine the price. That is the price of your voucher. So direct costs = direct benefits. That's how you arrive at the price. Here, we are talking about money.

We do not know how much will they add up to (in dollars) but we do know that education generates more social benefits than costs. Its not assumption, it's a general fact. Here, we are no longer talking about money. That's why you cannot say that the voucher will pay for everything because we do not know exactly the monetary value of the benefits that outweigh the cost. In this case social benefit > social cost.

So you combine the first paragraph with the second paragraph and overall, benefit is greater than cost.


If that is true then how dose the current system pay for all of it's social benefits if they outweigh the cost?

Btw, why are we the only ones talking?
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/08

Apothem wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


Apothem wrote:


Transportation would be a problem? Yes that is true. More than likely the "good schools" would come from more upper class areas. But if those schools see that theres a huge cash cow of kids from the poor part of town, that would be more than enough incentive to get a bus out there to get them. But then this would drive up costs would it now? Yes it would. But if would take into fact that if they spread the cost between all those kids for one bus. It would be very minimal.


And then the main concern here now is that we don't make it complicated as much as possible. Even if we take your suggestion at this particular situation, it becomes discriminatory. We are raised with questions such as: Why do the poor kids need to travel daily at the cost of convenience of the rich kids? Will that in itself affect their performance and therefore, education? What happens when you mix fast learners and slow learners together in the same school? Who will cater for the transportation? Will that mean that the transportation industry will grow at the cost of something else? Can the producers meet up the demands for the transport service? Will it add to the over pollution and traffic congestion?

Those are all social costs in themselves that must be taken into consideration. And now the state becomes no longer just concerned with the economics of education, but a lot more other things as well. That's why its always a prerogative to take the simplest route possible, all things made equal.


Well obviously it is going to be complicated. Not as complicated as before were every decision had to go through a selective proses by a board of education from the district if not the state or federal bureaucracies. Which in it's self is a waste of time and money. Whereas each school and quickly decide what they need to do when they need to do it within their own system.

To answer some of your questions in the first paragraph...Why do the poor kids need to travel daily at the cost of convenience of the rich kids? That's just the way things go. Adding a social class gap in a school is not a bad thing. Mixing the two would be a great social experience of the kids for years to come. Will that in itself affect their performance and therefore, education? It will in good and bad ways but it will build their social experience. What happens when you mix fast learners and slow learners together in the same school? This happens in every social class. There are fast learners in Poor societies and vice-versa. Who will cater for the transportation? The school will. Will that mean that the transportation industry will grow at the cost of something else? If they even want to use them in the first place. In public schools every so often schools pay for new buses. Now the money will be put into vouchers so they would be able to pay for it. Will it add to the over pollution and traffic congestion? The schools cannot entirely control this. Depends on what Bus manufactures create. The public would push them to make a environmentally safe bus.


I'm so sorry but I think you just.. need to understand more the concepts of social costs and benefits. Its not... really a question of whether it would be a good or bad experience for the kids in the time to come, or whether it would build their social experience or whether the bus manufacturers would develop eco friendly buses, no. We are not talking about these kind of things.

After reading those answers, I.. just honestly don't know what to say anymore.
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/08

Apothem wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


Apothem wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


Apothem wrote:



In response to the first paragraph, all of that is already supplied and accounted for in each voucher. You also have to consider after all the administrative bodies from school districts(each being paid 80,000+ dollars a year minimum) and state bureaucrats no longer become part of the voucher system, it adds a HUGE bonus to the overall price per voucher as you no longer have to pay for them. Thus giving them more monetary value? If I'm using the word correctly. :P


Well the problem with social costs and benefits is that there is no way to appraise them. In other words, there's no way you can tell how much they are actually valued. You may say there is 80,000 dollar extra but you don't really know if that's too much, too little, or just enough. There is no way of arriving at a value that would correctly..um.. valuate a certain social cost or benefit.


Apothem wrote:
In response to your second paragraph....what? o_0 How would the social benefits be more than the cost? Can you explain that? Sorry for not understanding what you mean. It's best to give an example. But if your too lazy to give one, I understand.



Okay.. there are direct costs and benefits right, determined by costs of production/labour/service and satisfaction to the students. They pretty much cancel each other out when monetary price is determined.

Then there are social costs and benefits. If there are more social costs than benefits, like in Education.. doesn't really cause pollution, or stress, or turmoil, but instead it helps in the literacy of the public and [insert what other good things about education that you can think of here], then the overall benefit is already more than the cost.



Thanks again. Lets go back...


projectcedric wrote:
If the social benefits of education is taken into consideration, the overall benefits should be more than the cost (cost minus benefits), we say that therefore that this good is "over priced" and the actual price should be lower. But the private producers will no longer be willing to produce such goods if the price is lowered because if they do, it will be at a loss. In the short run, a loss can still be sustainable if we are talking large scale and scale of economies help in the long run. But a loss in the long run will cause the industry to crumble.


You are assuming way to much. You can't say that the social benefits would outweigh the the cost if we don't know how much the benefits will add up to. The Vouchers should pay for everything plus more(I assume this) after the middle man is destroyed in order to expand.


The direct costs and benefits already cancel themselves out when you determine the price. That is the price of your voucher. So direct costs = direct benefits. That's how you arrive at the price. Here, we are talking about money.

We do not know how much will they add up to (in dollars) but we do know that education generates more social benefits than costs. Its not assumption, it's a general fact. Here, we are no longer talking about money. That's why you cannot say that the voucher will pay for everything because we do not know exactly the monetary value of the benefits that outweigh the cost. In this case social benefit > social cost.

So you combine the first paragraph with the second paragraph and overall, benefit is greater than cost.


If that is true then how dose the current system pay for all of it's social benefits if they outweigh the cost?


We don't. That's why it's a dead end industry, and the government has to intervene to sustain. Because the government's job is to earn money through taxation, investments and other stuffs and use that money to produce public goods. Otherwise, public goods will be underproduced. If there are only private schools in a country, the schools will not be enough to accommodate all demands for education. That is why there are public schools.
954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / San Diego, CA.
Offline
Posted 1/7/08

projectcedric wrote:
I'm so sorry but I think you just.. need to understand more the concepts of social costs and benefits. Its not... really a question of whether it would be a good or bad experience for the kids in the time to come, or whether it would build their social experience or whether the bus manufacturers would develop eco friendly buses, no. We are not talking about these kind of things.

After reading those answers, I.. just honestly don't know what to say anymore.


Yha, you lost me when you started using economics lingo. Look at this way, you taught me a lot.

So lets put this in laymen terms. You are just worried about the economical downfalls that might occur if this was put into affect?

2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/08

Apothem wrote:


projectcedric wrote:
I'm so sorry but I think you just.. need to understand more the concepts of social costs and benefits. Its not... really a question of whether it would be a good or bad experience for the kids in the time to come, or whether it would build their social experience or whether the bus manufacturers would develop eco friendly buses, no. We are not talking about these kind of things.

After reading those answers, I.. just honestly don't know what to say anymore.


Yha, you lost me when you started using economics lingo. Look at this way, you taught me a lot.

So lets put this in laymen terms. You are just worried about the economical downfalls that might occur if this was put into affect?



Yes. Simply put, it defeats the purpose of the state taking over the production of education as a public good. Its not very viable socially and can have adverse repercussions.
954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / San Diego, CA.
Offline
Posted 1/7/08

projectcedric wrote:


Apothem wrote:


projectcedric wrote:
I'm so sorry but I think you just.. need to understand more the concepts of social costs and benefits. Its not... really a question of whether it would be a good or bad experience for the kids in the time to come, or whether it would build their social experience or whether the bus manufacturers would develop eco friendly buses, no. We are not talking about these kind of things.

After reading those answers, I.. just honestly don't know what to say anymore.


Yha, you lost me when you started using economics lingo. Look at this way, you taught me a lot.

So lets put this in laymen terms. You are just worried about the economical downfalls that might occur if this was put into affect?



Yes. Simply put, it defeats the purpose of the state taking over the production of education as a public good. Its not very viable socially and can have adverse repercussions.


Then why didn't you say so in the first place?! Haha

I'm still not convinced. I still have to do more research on the economic side of things before I can give in. You have won the battle good sir. BUT YOU HAVE YET TO WIN THE WAR! *stomps off*
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/08

Apothem wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


Apothem wrote:


projectcedric wrote:
I'm so sorry but I think you just.. need to understand more the concepts of social costs and benefits. Its not... really a question of whether it would be a good or bad experience for the kids in the time to come, or whether it would build their social experience or whether the bus manufacturers would develop eco friendly buses, no. We are not talking about these kind of things.

After reading those answers, I.. just honestly don't know what to say anymore.


Yha, you lost me when you started using economics lingo. Look at this way, you taught me a lot.

So lets put this in laymen terms. You are just worried about the economical downfalls that might occur if this was put into affect?



Yes. Simply put, it defeats the purpose of the state taking over the production of education as a public good. Its not very viable socially and can have adverse repercussions.


Then why didn't you say so in the first place?! Haha

I'm still not convinced. I still have to do more research on the economic side of things before I can give in. You have won the battle good sir. BUT YOU HAVE YET TO WIN THE WAR! *stomps off*




Okay. Hey just in case, John Sloman writes good economics textbooks. Easy to digest but not simplistic.
1028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 1/13/08

Apothem wrote:

A voucher system is an alternative method of funding education. Instead of tax revenue being distributed to state-run schools, parents are issued directly with vouchers, which can be spent on education in any school, privately or publicly run. Schools therefore compete for pupils and the funds that come with them. The debate asks what role the state should play in the education system. Should parents have more choice over where their children are educated? Or should state funds remain under state control?
Thoughts?


Not really a US resident but, I have some comments:

Doesn't that mean the voucher system eliminates the existance of private schools? The main reason why reason why public school exist is because running a school is expensive. Because providing education is a goverment program, they're the one who responsible in providing the text books, club/lab funds, teachers (etc) and not just the buildings and fields to all of the citizens. The goverment also have to provide and maintain of the education system and ensure that the quality and quatity of teachers are adequate.

With the existance of private schools, not only that they ease up the burden in financially, but they can also raise the education standard, competitivly. The catch is ofcourse, privately run schools are expansive, way more than publicly run school. However, private school does provide scholarship for gifted children, so I don't see the role of voucher in providing competiveness in attracting the pupils here. Another thing is that, teacher salary is higher (usually) in private school. In short, private school is more expensive because they provide better facilities, better curriculum, better teachers, etc. Parents know these. Not only that, location/facilities also affect the cost. Thus expense is different from school to school. Which boils down to whether a voucher can adequately reflects the cost of a seat in a school, and I'm not even talking about the value.

And because of that, educations are multibillion dollar businesses. If voucher is issued instead, that would mean an increase in expenditure in the goverment side. Because bad schools can't simply be close down just because it does not have enough children. Why? Because the cost of building a school along with the necessary facilities is expensive. It is a huge waste if the school is closed down.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/1/08
I can't argue at projectcedric's level concerning economics, but... this sounds like trouble.

1.) The public is deciding what schools are best, which could be re-worded to say that it is deciding what is proper material. I know, not a very democratic attitude on my part, but I don't think the public can be trusted to settle on schools that teach the proper material without bias. I fear that more schools teaching creationism as science, for example, might arise in certain areas of the United States. Basically, the gaps in education among different areas would grow even larger. It doesn't have to be religious, of course; it could easily be political. I'm just concerned that we'd have the common people deciding what truth is without necessarily having any method at arriving at that point besides prejudiced upbringing. Maybe I'm blowing this out of proportion, maybe not.

2.) Centralization of education in particular areas. This obviously discourages people from leaving these locations, which equates to discouraging outward growth. Value of property closer to the popular schools would go up, creating more of a physical gap between the rich and the poor, those who can afford to live nearby and those who cannot. Then the community immediately surrounding the school would have very obvious effects on the school itself, creating further division. Perhaps this would grant new experiences to the disadvantaged, perhaps it would offer different classes exposure to each other as preparation for the "real world." But I'm wary of the benefit of this compared to the cost, especially since the school years, being very important to development, should not be a time of this sort of division. I also don't have any faith that raising people from an early age to get along with each other despite differences is particularly effective. Then there are the inconveniences like transportation and excessively large schools, the former of which is likely a greater problem than you have stated.

Maybe systems could be implemented to deal with some of these issues, but I'm just attempting to deal with what you've presented alone.

First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.