From owner-freebsd-chat  Sun Aug 10 16:31:55 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA23260
          for chat-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA23252;
          Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.6/8.8.5) id SAA29591;
	Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:31:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-Id: <199708102331.SAA29591@dyson.iquest.net>
Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970810154149.1039A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> from Annelise Anderson at "Aug 10, 97 03:53:41 pm"
To: andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu (Annelise Anderson)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:31:06 -0500 (EST)
Cc: scott@statsci.com, ac199@hwcn.org, jmb@FreeBSD.ORG, hoek@hwcn.org,
        softweyr@xmission.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> 
> On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Scott Blachowicz wrote:
> 
> > Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > > But it may improve the public schools.  They'd have to compete for
> > > students.
> > 
> > How do they compete if they have less money? Don't the vouchers imply less
> > money for the public schools, which in turn probably implies cutbacks and no
> > means to expand the curriculae?
> 
> Most proposals involve new public funds, so the schools wouldn't get
> less money (or less money per student).  Ultimately there's no reason
> why a voucher system should cost (overall) more than people are
> currently paying in taxes plus what they pay for private tuition.
> 
> There's also no evidence that what students learn correlates with
> the amount spent per student.  
>
Imagine the taxes that we "are" paying for those who are undereducated
or are a burden on society.  Seems like improving the schools by competition
is a long-term strategy, and in the long-term will pay off by more productive
people.  (In the sense of those who fit the needed job slots better.)

John