In a purely free market of educational vouchers, there would be some districts in which there is too little demand for a school. I’m saying that we don’t just abandon the children who are stuck there, even though that’s not what a perfectly free market would dictate.

I agree with you that a purely market based approach to education is impractical. Still, I’m addressing a system much too close to the opposite extreme of the spectrum. In my ideal system the government would fund a limited safety net of public schools. Only families making less than a certain amount would have free access to these schools. Over a certain income families would be required to provide education for their own kids. The cost of the safety net would be spread among all taxpayers.

The problem with labels like “paternalism” and “elitist” is that they’re vague, pejorative, and not much else. Whatever they call it, most people agree that the government should interfere with people’s liberty in certain situations. Is it “paternalism” to tell someone he can’t drive drunk or chain his child to a bed for weeks?

Sure, paternalism is in the eye of the beholder and can be appropriate, but it can also be abused. I would differentiate between varieties of paternalism. Both the examples you provided show government preventing people from endangering others/violating others’ individual rights. That is appropriate paternalism (in this sense government is inherently paternalistic). The inappropriate paternalism that I referred to was government telling people what was best for themselves (and by extension their wards). I put a mandated public system in a class with banning transfats from restaurants and restricting smoking even in privately owned establishments.

This is a big problem with modernity and perhaps an intractable one. We don’t really have a common culture as Americans, and even secularism doesn’t offer a consistent culture. However, I think history shows that when sub-cultures withdraw into their ghettos, it tends to destabilize society.

I agree that universal American cultural norms are a myth and that secularism is variegated. I don’t agree with your premise about sub-cultural ghettos. Waves of immigration are a constant in American history. Invariably the first generation of immigrants, whether from Germany, Ireland, Italy, Eastern Europe, Latin America, or Asia, was criticized for resisting going native (thus Ben Franklin’s complaints about the hordes of “Palantine boors”). The second generation though becomes bicultural. The third generation is pretty thoroughly assimilated (though some cultural memories make it through intact). From what I understand, though I’m no expert, this pattern predates universal public education. I am not convinced that public education speeds that process up; I suspect that cultural consumption is the key factor in that transition. I remember a story about an illegal immigrant mother living near San Fransisco. The reporter asked her if she wanted to become American to which she responded in Spanish (rough paraphrase): “Not until my hair turns blond and eyes go blue.” Despite her protestations, the reporter noted that as she said this her teenage son was watching the Simpsons, wearing a 49ers jacket, and talking in fluent English on the phone.

Instances where sub-cultures do destabilize society (like France) have very different national identities. Of course nationalism is a construct, but powerful nevertheless. Rather than blaming the presence of sub-cultural ghettos per se, I wonder if the Francophile ideal combined with informal cultural racism to cause the tension. American identity seems to be a more fluid concept.

The fact that stores of all kinds in poor areas tend to be fewer and of lower quality can’t just be attributed to bureaucracy. It’s just logical that everything else being equal, a business with finite resources is going to make the choice that maximizes profit, and crime and property values will affect that profit.

I contest the idea of stores in poor areas are “lower quality.” Quality for a resident of Beverly Hills is likely different from someone living in North Philadelphia. Sure, customer service might be worse or the goods made from cheaper materials, but that could simply be what those people demand. I should also point out that crime and property values are often in an inverse relationship. Some stores might locate in poor and/or crimeridden areas because property is cheaper. The cheaper cost of building and the resulting lower overhead from property taxes might encourage certain stores to invest in poor areas at the expense of wealthier areas. Think Dollar Stores. Investing in a poor community can also maximize profit. I see no reason why education couldn’t work the same way.

I’m a bit concerned at the paternalism you casually evinced–guardians are ignorant or untrustworthy so a paternal bureaucrat will do better–that’s the sort of rhetoric I expect from elitists about welfare, affirmative action, and like evidences of state paternalism.

The problem with labels like “paternalism” and “elitist” is that they’re vague, pejorative, and not much else. Whatever they call it, most people agree that the government should interfere with people’s liberty in certain situations. Is it “paternalism” to tell someone he can’t drive drunk or chain his child to a bed for weeks?

I’m not saying that in general someone should determine poor people’s educational choices for them; I’m saying that there should be a baseline of educational quality. In a purely free market of educational vouchers, there would be some districts in which there is too little demand for a school. I’m saying that we don’t just abandon the children who are stuck there, even though that’s not what a perfectly free market would dictate.

I don’t like to think of school vouchers as government money; I believe vouchers belong to parents, not to the government. I see vouchers as the government refunding people their money so they can purchase education. In this sense vouchers are like annual tax refunds.

This doesn’t really apply to poor or probably even lower middle class people, because they’re not paying enough taxes to cover voucher costs. So either you have true vouchers-as-refunds and exclude the poor, or you have vouchers-as-subsidies.

Why shouldn’t a Muslim parent have the right to send their kid to a Muslim school?

They should. I just don’t know that my tax dollars should help them do that, especially when without the voucher (and assuming even a maximum tax refund) they couldn’t do it themselves. Maybe they should; I don’t know. I’m ambivalent.

Using a one size fits all approach to inculcate general “American” (what does that mean?) values is counterproductive since it leads to any number of problems.

This is a big problem with modernity and perhaps an intractable one. We don’t really have a common culture as Americans, and even secularism doesn’t offer a consistent culture. However, I think history shows that when sub-cultures withdraw into their ghettos, it tends to destabilize society. People should be free to do that on their own dime; I don’t know that tax dollars should fund it.

Ah, but your Walmart example actually bolsters my argument. Walmart would love to locate in the inner city, but government intervention is what typically keeps them out. Time and time again (I can think of New York and Los Angeles offhand) Walmart has wanted to move in to urban cities but have been stymied by red tape, unions, and advocacy groups. As you noted, since red tape and labor monopolies are a roadblock to both Walmart and school choice my solution is to cut the tape and break the monopoly; these are ultimately surmountable even though formidable barriers.

Maybe Wal-Mart is a bad example because of controversies regarding its non-unionization, but I think you overestimate the role such red tape plays in general. The fact that stores of all kinds in poor areas tend to be fewer and of lower quality can’t just be attributed to bureaucracy. It’s just logical that everything else being equal, a business with finite resources is going to make the choice that maximizes profit, and crime and property values will affect that profit.

I’m a bit concerned at the paternalism you casually evinced–guardians are ignorant or untrustworthy so a paternal bureaucrat will do better–that’s the sort of rhetoric I expect from elitists about welfare, affirmative action, and like evidences of state paternalism. Of course some guardians don’t care and their children would not be better off than in the current system, but the ones who do would be better served by vouchers because it would give them choices they don’t currently have.

Ah, but your Walmart example actually bolsters my argument. Walmart would love to locate in the inner city, but government intervention is what typically keeps them out. Time and time again (I can think of New York and Los Angeles offhand) Walmart has wanted to move in to urban cities but have been stymied by red tape, unions, and advocacy groups. As you noted, since red tape and labor monopolies are a roadblock to both Walmart and school choice my solution is to cut the tape and break the monopoly; these are ultimately surmountable even though formidable barriers.

Lower income consumers are overrepresented at Walmarts because poor consumers are more cost conscious. Indeed, just like with the schools, it is ironic that the greatest opposition to Walmart expansion tends to come from wealthier NIMBY types. So too, opposition to school vouchers often comes from the entitled while surveys of the lower sort show big support for Walmarts and school choice.

I don’t like to think of school vouchers as government money; I believe vouchers belong to parents, not to the government. I see vouchers as the government refunding people their money so they can purchase education. In this sense vouchers are like annual tax refunds. Wouldn’t it be silly to advocate preventing people from donating their tax refund money to their church or using it to send their kid to a private school? When the government gives it back it is yours to spend as you like. A voucher is similar, though with one string attached: it can only be spent on education.

Why shouldn’t a Muslim parent have the right to send their kid to a Muslim school? Why shouldn’t a Christian parent be allowed to send their kids to a Christian school? Why shouldn’t a __________ parent be allowed to send their kids to a _____________ school? Ad infinitum. The grand Dewey standardization experiment has been a failure. Using a one size fits all approach to inculcate general “American” (what does that mean?) values is counterproductive since it leads to any number of problems. With a voucher based system the fights over intelligent design/evolution and sex ed (among others) would become moot.

Indeed I’ll go a step farther and argue that ultimately there will be more schools in poor neighborhoods than there currently are. Lower class vouchers are worth every bit as much as middle or upper class vouchers.

I’m not sure that would actually be true (although I would support experimenting with it on a small scale). A inner-city $20 bill is just as good as a suburban $20, but there isn’t an equality of stores. Wal-Mart locates in suburbia (and for the most part not downtown) for the same reasons a for-profit school is likely to do the same: rent is lower, real estate is more available, employees can be paid less, there are lower crime costs, etc.: in other words, the profit margin is greater.

Then there’s the problem of church and state. Should my tax dollars be funding an inner-city Islamic madrasah? Maybe; I’m not sure.

“There is growing empirical evidence that low-income parents place lower weights on academics when choosing schools, implying that school choice plans may have the smallest impact on the choices of the families they are targeting.”

This doesn’t mean more choice wouldn’t be an improvement, but it might not be the boon you think it would be.

And, in the interest of shameless self-promotion, here’s a post I wrote about year ago about centralization and education.

And let’s not forget that that BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, et al. were enticed to particular locations in the South’s “New Detroit” by hundreds of millions of dollars in state subsidies.

See this link for the 2008 “More American” truck results:

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2008/07/28/toyota-tundra-more-american-than-silverado-and-ram/

I am arguing for the introduction of the market into education. Supply and demand regulate themselves in the market. Your second question is only an issue in a planned educational economy where bureaucrats have to set supply and demand. In the market, comparative advantage rules. When people are going out of their way to purchase a good or service from a certain supplier, competitors see an opportunity. They find the source of the demand and build an establishment closer to the source of the demand (or the original company preempts the competition by opening another store…either way the demand is satisfied). Like water, supply flows downhill.

The disparity would only be temporary. To be honest what I am proposing doesn’t have to clear a very high bar…disparity of funding and a lack of access are massive problems in the current system. Sure, there might be disparities in my proposed voucher system, but it can hardly be worse than the situation we currently face.