I linked an extensive series of arguments by David Friedman
Better go check your post, because I don't see any links.I saw you throw his name out there with no arguments attached. What's good for the goose...
After I referred to that, you just called him impractical and extreme.
And I explained why.
You argued that we can't drop public education because this will mean that millions of impoverished children will be left out in the cold.
Correct.
The fact that our public education already has this consequence should be taken into any sensible cost/benefit comparison between public and private systems.
You're not explaining yourself here. Twice now. What the hell do you mean by this? Are you referring to preschool?
If you are asserting that all children in poverty would not get an education in a private system, this is simply false.
It isn't false at all. Private systems are designed to make profits. There are no profits to be made from the poor. The voucher idea sounds all nice until you realize that single-parent households don't give a crap about doing the proper paperwork to make sure it happens. You may say that's not the fault of the private system, it is the fault of the parent, but that's still proving my point that in a private system children in poverty will be left out in the cold.
They fail to be educated. That's your concern with the fate of impoverished children, right?
Yes, that's right. But if you think all impoverished children "fail to get educated" then you're deluding yourself. At least in a public system, these children have a place to go and a chance to make it. And many of them do. Many of them don't. But the point is, they'lll have that chance. Many of them succeed after receiving multiple chances, acts of forgiveness, etc. In a private system there is no forgiveness. There is the choice between performing or expulsion. Because a private school won't stand for having its profits threatened by enrolling low scoring students.
You are worried that x% of poor parents won't fund their education, right? If you assert, as you do, that failed students are getting a raw deal at home and that's why they fail, that still is the case when kids have parents who won't pay for schooling. I am saying it isn't immediately obvious that graduation rates would be lower than they are in a private system.
It should be obvious. It is difficult to graduate when you are not allowed to stay in school due to non-payment and poor performance, neither of which is an issue in a public system. That fewer American children would participate in such a system should be a no-brainer. It is difficult enough trying to get poorer kids to go to school as it is, and even more difficult to get them interested in the whole concept of education.
The comparison is between the public system as it exists in reality, which is deeply flawed, and the private system's flaws.
Well no crap. I've underscored those flaws for you, and you still think there would be no difference in the number of kids "left out in the cold." In a private system, they would
literally be left out. In a public system, they're only left out in the sense that some will not get educated because of their own choices. This complaint you forward presupposes that the reason some poor kids don't get educated is because there is something wrong with the teaching. I call BS on that one. You can take "teacher of the year" from one location and transfer him/her to the worst school in the country, and you're likely not to see much difference. The fact is some kids have serious social issues that require far more time and effort to overcome before serious learning can be expected. But that cannot happen unless you're willing to take the time required. There are of course few exceptions. The movie about Jaime Escalante comes to mind, but if anyone has actually seen the movie "
Stand and Deliver," they know that he did more work than four teachers, two psychologists and a half dozen social workers and all those kids' parents put together.