February 24, 2006


Parents paying 'postcode premium' (BBC, 2/24/06)

Some parents would spend up to £25,000 on a new home to get their child into a better school, research suggests.

The amount parents in Britain are likely to spend amounts to £18bn, the report by ING Direct Bank says.

A survey of 2,291 people found 39% of parents questioned said they were planning to move so that the family home was in a desirable catchment area.

With numbers and trends like that the only thing that would stop eventual voucherization is too few voters with kids.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 24, 2006 8:56 AM

Nope. You've somehow got to overcome the resistance of those parents who have paid the premium and don't want their school soiled by the kids whose parents can't.

Posted by: b at February 24, 2006 11:53 AM

everyone (here) seems to think vouchers are going to open the gates to suburbia, and therefore suburban voters are against them. just how far do you think a child from los angeles will have to travel before they are outside of the lausd ? seems to me the real problem with implementing vouchers is the judicial interference being organized by the democrats in urban areas.

Posted by: toe at February 24, 2006 12:07 PM


Neighborhoods, not just suburbs.

Posted by: oj at February 24, 2006 12:11 PM

toe: If you give vouchers to kids from the hellhole that is East St. Louis, they'll have to use them in the small IL towns that aren't all that far away at all. The residents of those towns would fight tooth and nail to prevent such a program.

Posted by: b at February 24, 2006 12:21 PM

There is nothing hard to figure out here. Parents everywhere strap themselves--both parents working, multiple jobs, that sort of thing--to put as much distance as possible between their children and the dysfunctional children whose pathologies mar general population urban schools.

The lure of vouchers is that choice is extended to parents who could not otherwise afford to buy their childrens way out of the system.

The threat that vouchers will lead to undesireables bussed out to the suburbs is a cynical ploy by the teachers' unions and their political stooges to frighten those parents who have made the sacrifices to ransom their children from the city schools into thinking that their labor will have been in vain.

In the absence of out-of-district transport, the market will provide alternatives to public schools. There will be plenty of empty buildings and plenty of teachers looking for work.

This issue is another example of how the other side plays the race card. This is not a racial matter but a cultural one. Racial issues are used to obfuscate and to divide.

On the contrary, the principal beneficiaries of voucherization would be children of color.

Posted by: Lou Gots at February 24, 2006 12:59 PM

b: as lou has stated, why wouldn't new schools start up in east st louis ? and how exactly do the kids in esl get out to those mean old small towns ?

Posted by: toe at February 24, 2006 2:22 PM

toe, ever been to East St. Louis? I may be wrong, but there would seem to be about as much chance for new schols there as for a new Carthage after the Romans got done with it. I would love to be wrong.

Posted by: jdkelly at February 24, 2006 6:54 PM

i have read several articles about the run down nature of st louis, and it sounds a lot like the bronx area of nyc. i have also read about charter schools being set up in the bronx that are now producing excellent test scores. there are no gurantees in life but i don't see why ESL can't do what was done in other places, with great success.

Posted by: toe at February 24, 2006 7:43 PM