This is a good article, Joe.

The common moral undercurrent required for a highly effective society is a subject that politicians don't want to talk about.

My step-father was in China during WWII. He helped fly Chiang Kai-shek around the country. I asked him if he missed China, and wanted to go back to see how much it had grown.

He wanted nothing of the sort. His experience comparing his rural West Virginia religious upbringing to that of the urban Chinese was not positive: he said the Chinese were to a man completely amoral and could not be trusted. His group had to stay armed -- not becasue of the war, but to keep the Chinese from stealing everything they had. He said they were told that if they were in town and ran over a Chinese person that they were to continue driving. This was because if you stopped, you would be subject to mob violence. He found the lack of common morals very disgusting.

I have noticed two geographic regions of improved health statistics that can be tied to religious demographics to some degree. One is the region around Utah influenced by Latter-Day Saints; the other is what I call the Lutheran Belt -- Minnesota westward into the Dakotas.

The LDS are proscribed from alcohol, smoking, and coffee. Smoking is universally regarded as bad for you, but alchohol and coffee are supposed to be good for you in some degree. Do you take a hit healthwise for not drinking any alcohol or coffee, or are the health benefits of the "two drinks of red wine per day" overstated? I don't understand Lutherans to be under any ban of alcohol, smoking, or coffee, but I am guessing that heavy smoking and drinking is frowned upon. Is this the factor?

How does weight factor in -- as of late there is a serious campaign to guilt us about being too heavy as opposed to the traditional vices. Vegetarianism is encouraged among Adventists -- how do they do with weight and health?

Anyway, totally abstaining from booze is supposed to be bad for you but the LDS don't seem that bad off, and being heavy is supposed to be really bad, but are the LDS or for that matters the Plains State Lutherans any slimmer?

School Vouchers

Would revolutionize our school system and take it back to were it should be the top of the heap. Would it do it overnight NO? Would the public school system be decimated in the process Yes? Would the LLL freak out Yes? Would there be some fringe wako ideas that may or may not work tried yes? Will it work in the end YES?

The reason vouchers would work is the same reason capitalism works “spontaneous order” Very simply the fact that if allowed to operate freely by spontaneous order the successful systems and ideas will thrive while the unsuccessful will fail and be bought out by the successful. Everything the government tries to do or even regulate they destroy. By bailing out failing companies because they cant survive the rainy day only encourages that same business model whereas if they were to be allowed to fail the other companies who did prepare would prosper and take over the ill run.

This idea for the school mentioned in the story may have some merit and it may not but under a voucher system it should be allowed to try they best will be found. If it were successful more parents would request to go their and other schools would copy the plan to get more students more money. If it is a failure then well the same in reverse. The current Public school system is tied down with internal regulation from some far off place that has nothing to do with effectiveness but it sounds great in a PR politician speech.

There will be some fringe schools and there will also be some division by a voucher system and there will be huge amounts of confusion, theft, and problems early on. But it will work itself out. Schools that separate their children from the rest of society will not produce the best products (students) and in time will go down as will the fringe groups and the confusion (which mainly will be caused by thousands of new choices with little to no track record to base decision on, 4yrs and on will fix that problem.).

Sliding into rant below;

And the communal belonging doesn’t have that much to do with success the Mormons do well because they are heavy on morals. Their girls get pregnant they are married same with son, parents are very very hands on and have weight over their children and those now married children are pushed hard and raised to not get divorced even thou they have differences. Their children are taught to obey adults and told they are children and must listen no (be the kids friend crap level) they get heavy teachings of right and wrong good work ethic (something utterly destroyed in this nation by Welfare rewarding of the weak criminalization of the successful and you deserve it mentality mixed with heavy excuse for failure and of course the best there is no real failure cant offend anyone). Those are the MORALS they are what made this nation and what the left has purposely destroyed one by one.

I don’t understand why short the huge amounts of old soviet propaganda and money pumped into the left but their goals are goals that will utterly and have so far destroy this nation. Were do you want to start the fact women don’t have to get married when pregnant nor men meaning single parent kids (if you want a idea of the damage that does go to any local courthouse sit in Juvenile court and watch 90% are single parent kids) then even if married there is no requirement and hell the Divorce Alimony Child Support systems of this nation actually support separation. A two parent family even if the Mom/Dad are not lovy duvy all the time is better than a one parent family that is maybe easier on the parent but devastating on the child. Welfare welfare is not a system made to assist people up it solely supports the weak and helps them multiply. If they wanted welfare to help it would be given as a option easily assemble say were a US citizen could draw say 2years worth (taken from the SS security so you would get 2yrs now for going SS 2yrs later than the limit) and that way either the guy risking a new career mid life with lower pay with prospect of much higher future pay could use this crutch to get him over the top. A guy wanting to do a small business but those first 2 years you cant just starve could use this crutch. That’s helping the people not giving someone something that is even written in a way that you cant get it if you try to come up. Does anyone realized that to get unemployment you must be unemployed for MONTHS WTF if you cant get a job for months you either have to high expectations or are not trying either way you don’t need unemployment for what kick the can down the road so your faults making them even more embedded? Unemployment should be quick for everyone but short term for those who are truly trying to get a job they guy who got laid off and needs some in-between to survive to the next job (and again I would pull it directly off the term of SS).

I could go on and on our government is broken badly we have been propagandized by a mentality that is suicidal self-hating me me to the extreme. All of the worst traits of freedom capitalism and human nature have been emphasized by our so-called leadership by government policies and all in feel good wrapping.

"It is possible to create safer, better, happier, healthier, schools, and many parents would send their children to such schools if they had the option..."

They have the option now. No one is forcing people to send their kids to a particular school. Nor are the prevented from taking steps to improve the schools they have.

The problem here is not with schools, but with parents, and no amount of subsidy is going to correct that problem.

If a kid gets to the 10th grade and can't read some would say that his school failed him. Does anyone really agree with this? I would hope not.

I don't have kids yet I pay around 6k a year in school taxes. I'm not complaining and I'm happy to have excellent schools in my area. It increases the value of my property and helps to provide good employees for my business.

But should my government decide to offer vouchers to people here I'll be expecting mine too. And that's really what this is all about.

"If a kid gets to the 10th grade and can't read some would say that his school failed him. Does anyone really agree with this? I would hope not."

You dont think the school has some liability in that? I agree the parents (parent in all likelyhood) are most to blame, but the fact that the school passed along someone who clearly did not merit advancement is majorly screwed up as well. If anything this mitigates the parents a small amount, because obviously the school isnt making a stink about the failing kid- they just keep passing him along like nothing is wrong. Thats a tragedy. And an outrage. I hope they arent training our nuclear power plant operators like that.

Lets not kid outselves, the schools are abjectly failing in many if not most areas and the parents are a big problem but not the only one. Imagine for a moment the school was a business you started, and the first thing you found out was you arent allowed to fire most of your employees for anything less than criminal activity, at least not without a major fight. Then, your employees tell you they dont feel their performance should be monitored or rated in any way, because they are the professionals, and they will decide whats important.

How crazy is that? Teachers object to standardized testing because they supposedly dont want to teach to pass the test. They are supposed to be teaching whats on the test, thats the point. What instead would they rather be teaching? How can you possibly say in a geometry class that you dont want to waste your time teaching your kids how to solve for the area of a triangle for the standardized test because it interferes with what you prefer to teach them?! And that passes as an argument? The NCLBA is brilliant if no other reason than it revealed some major truths. The teachers unions dont want to teach what society tells them to teach, and they dont want to be judged or evaluated for not doing it.

"They have the option now. No one is forcing people to send their kids to a particular school."

Not if you're a rich white liberal with private school options, no. If you're poor and black, things look rather different. The clear message of the "Black Flight" article above is what happens when that choice is truly given to all.

But the Democratic Party has been bought by teacher's unions, so they'd rsather not help you.

"Nor are the prevented from taking steps to improve the schools they have."

What is that, some kind of sick, sadistic joke? How does this story work for you, Davebo?

God, that's a cruel attitude. "Sorry, but if you're poort and black you'll just have to undertake a multi-year lobbying campaign with no certainty of success, while your child falls further and further behind."

George Wallace couldn't have devised a better response.

"The problem here is not with schools, but with parents, and no amount of subsidy is going to correct that problem."

Ah, yes. Liberal "we know best" paternalism meets its impulse to blame the victim if its political coalition pays it enough.

Of course, Davebo. Couldn't possibly be the monopoly system and teachers' unions who donate so generously to your party. Must be those black parents. And yet... the links show that if you give them choices denied them by their financial circumstances, quite a few of them turn out to be pretty proactive and responsible after all.

I'm tired of your coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted standing in the schoolhouse door, while minorities suffer disproportionately and have their futures damaged irreparably. It's cruel, it's immoral, and the rationalizations for it are a disgusting example of politics at their worst. It needs to end.

It's not just a union thing. I've got a bunch of friends who are teachers, and they object to the way the standardized tests keep them from also teaching things that should be covered, but aren't on the test.

Again, a problem with one-size-fits-all, SLOWLY moving towards its inevitable conclusions.

"Everything the government tries to do or even regulate they destroy."
What planet do you live on?
On your planet who provides water,sewer, roads, transit, law enforcement, and defense?
I live on planet Earth in the United States of America and my government does all the above without destruction.
Like fish who ignore the ocean, conservative ideologues can ignore all the functions that government provides for them because they are provided so effectively and transparently.
The next time you drive down a smooth patch of asphalt, ask yourself what government agency provided it.

"I've got a bunch of friends who are teachers, and they object to the way the standardized tests keep them from also teaching things that should be covered, but aren't on the test."

Emphasis mine. And hence the problem. By definition, what is on the test is what should be covered. The teachers are angry because what they think they should be covering differs from what the federal government wants its federal funding to be used for, and what the state expects its state funding to be used for. What the teachers think should be covered is what they can introduce after the fundamentals set down by those who are paying the bills.

This is a major point of conflict. Teachers go to school, attend seminars, etc and are full of the latest teaching techniques and areas of study. Thats fantastic, but that doesnt mean they should then go and turn the curriculum towards those things at the expense of the fundamentals. All those new fangedled theories and self esteem boosters are useless if the kids cant read and add. So the whole point of standardized testing is to say: 'until your kids can read and add, dont teach them anything else'. Its not a bug, its the feature, its the point, its the essense, and its amazing how roundly it has been attacked by teachers and the teachers union. We understand you cant teach what you want to teach because you are spending all your time teaching kids reading, writing, and 'rithmatic. Thats a good thing!

While there may be a portion of this due to the Mormon religion itself . . .

Gross understatement. Mormons abstain from all forms of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. Thus lower smoking rates, lower alcohol consumption, lower heart disease. These results are not easily transferred to other religions.

While moderate amounts of alcohol may have some beneficial effects, alcohol consumption is also associated with risky behavior, including sexual conduct, poor employment practices and family abuse.

I'm not sure caffeine abstinence itself promotes any health issue, but it probably lowers sugar intake.

I believe the Mormon bible also encourages the consumption of whole wheat, fruits and vegetables, suggests moderation in the consumption of meat and eating in moderation in general.

Sorry, found the set-up way too distracting.

Pretty snarky Joe.

I agree we have some problem schools. And we need to do something about them. And yes, teachers unions are a part of the problem.

I liked Mathew Millers suggestions pointed out in his book The 2% Solution which included rolling back most of the unions rules on firing and pointed out that if we got serious about paying teachers a reasonable wage we'd see them turn on their unions in a heartbeat when the idea of getting rid of lousy teachers in the process was added.

But essentially vouchers are a means to rebate a portion of ones taxes for services they choose not to partake of. The problem is, parents don't even begin to fund public education. Walmarts and refineries and restaraunts fund public education.

Again, we have an education problem in America. The federal government is not going to solve it. We have to options.

Give up on public schools (vouchers) or work at the local level that actually controls the schools, to fix the problem.

And Joe, if a rebuttal requires you to put words in my mouth that I never uttered, perhaps it's best to just remain silent.

Mark, that works fine in math. And in fact the buddy of mine who teaches chemistry has his student ace the local version of the test on a regular basis.

But since when does the federal government run the schools?

It don't. The states do. NCLB is a mandate. And, a pretty good one -- fail too many times, and here come the vouchers. A nice compromise in a union-infested environment.

But that doesn't mean that education-by-committee is necessarily the best and brightest determinant of curriculum, either.

"if we got serious about paying teachers a reasonable wage we'd see them turn on their unions in a heartbeat "

Ah, another landmine. Since we're slaying sacred cows today, lets throw around some numbers. Here'teachers%20salaries' is an interesting list of beginning teachers salaries in several midwestern states with bachelor degrees and no experience. The median runs between 30k in Wisconsin and 36.7k in Pennsylvania (cost of living is a factor of course). At first blush, not bad. My first job out of college I started at 22k and that was 5 years ago.

Now thats before extracurriculars, tutoring etc. And more importantly thats only working about 190 days a year. Summers off dude. This paper goes into detail of exactly how many hours teachers work a year compared to other professions and how much they make. Conclusion? Hour for hour teachers on average make more than starting computer programmers, engineers, accountants, and lots of other 'high paying' professions. And lets not even talk about the great benefits teachers accrue.

Im not arguing teachers dont deserve this. Im arguing the conventional wisdom that teachers are underpaid and hence need the unions to protect them from indentured servitude are total B.S. Teaching is on average a great profession where you can make excellent money and benefits with near total job security. Now is it ok to ask them to perform up to standards?

"But since when does the federal government run the schools?

It don't. The states do. NCLB is a mandate."

Quite correct. But it is only a mandate if the schools want federal funds. Dont want the federal money? No problem, dont take it. No NCLB to worry about. But if you do take the money the feds do have the right to demand it be spent as they dictate.

"And more importantly thats only working about 190 days a year. Summers off dude"

Here in NC the school year, for teachers, is the middle of August to the end of May, but planning and meetings before the school year start in the first week of the month. The three months of summer is often taken up with various training programs for the CCEs or whatever its called that teachers in this state are required to accumulate. Over 200 although maybe not 240 days per year.
As your paper does note, good teachers don't do a 40 hour week either, 50, 60, 70 is more the norm. 7ish to work, 4-5 out, plus extra curriculur activities like clubs and events which don't pay extra, and then grading and pre-planning. Substitutes are often paid for by the teacher.
If its all such a good deal, how come teacher retention is such a big issue?

Mark,

22k a year? Why bother going to college? (wink)

In 2001-2002, the average teacher salary was $44,367. Your point concerning total working days is well taken, but it's not like that's up to the teachers. Imagine any other employer saying come work with us, but you'll be off 3 months every summer.

You may be passionate about what you do, and therefore willing to work for 30k per year, but any capitalist will tell you that at those levels of compensation you are not going to get the "best and brightest".

And beyond starting salaries, I don't know many people who would get excited at the prospect of working 25 years or so and getting a post graduate degree yet facing a salary ceiling of around 50k per year.

"Here in NC the school year, for teachers, is the middle of August to the end of May, but planning and meetings before the school year start in the first week of the month. The three months of summer is often taken up with various training programs for the CCEs or whatever its called that teachers in this state are required to accumulate. Over 200 although maybe not 240 days per year."

Hmm, i'd like to see some actual dates on this. Thats a range of 40 working days, maybe 20% of the total. Thats a big difference.

"As your paper does note, good teachers don't do a 40 hour week either, 50, 60, 70 is more the norm. 7ish to work, 4-5 out, plus extra curriculur activities like clubs and events which don't pay extra, and then grading and pre-planning. Substitutes are often paid for by the teacher. "

Again, i'd like to see some documentation on this, and we have to acknowledge its going to vary by district. Every teacher i know gets paid for coaching and running clubs, they are also given free periods for grading and class planning, and there are also a large number of days off, half days, and teachers days. The substitute issue i've never heard of so i guess its a regional thing.

"If its all such a good deal, how come teacher retention is such a big issue?"

How come lawyer retention is such a big issue? Or achitect retention? People change careers, i dont know that ive seen any studies comparing teachers to other professions, but my guess (-guess mind you) is that teachers in fact remain teachers in higher numbers than most professions.

"Mark, 22k a year? Why bother going to college? (wink)"

I hear ya. It was a major foot in the door though and didnt last long. Still stung a bit ;)

"In 2001-2002, the average teacher salary was $44,367. Your point concerning total working days is well taken, but it's not like that's up to the teachers. Imagine any other employer saying come work with us, but you'll be off 3 months every summer."

True but on the other hand nothing is stopping them from supplimenting their income in the summers. Tutoring can be very lucrative, as is summer school.

"You may be passionate about what you do, and therefore willing to work for 30k per year, but any capitalist will tell you that at those levels of compensation you are not going to get the "best and brightest"."

Very true, but again we have a systemic problem, because we arent just talking about paying the best and brightest. According to the current rules of the game we are talking about payin everyone, which given no incentive (aside from personal excellence) to be the best or brightest. Believe me, if you want to pay excellent teachers more i am all for it. Start showin the door to the inept teachers and then we're gettin somewhere.

"And beyond starting salaries, I don't know many people who would get excited at the prospect of working 25 years or so and getting a post graduate degree yet facing a salary ceiling of around 50k per year."

Retired by 55 with full pension and benies? i know plenty of people who would, and have! Yeh, there certainly is a trade-off with maximum salary, no-question (although again you have to factor in the working hours) but the upside is you never have to worry about your job. No outsourcing, no replacement by a young hotshot, not likely to see your branch closed down. Heck, you cant get fired just cuz your boss doesnt like your shirt like you can in the private sector. Risk vs reward, the American way.

Mark,

I think we can agree that our biggest education problems are in the inner cities. And drawing teachers into those schools is imperative. There are several ways of encouraging this but in the end the most effective is money.

Scholarships with a requirement to spend x years in an inner city school produces entry level teachers, not the assumably more skilled and experienced teachers we'd like to attract.

And as I eluded earlier, we need teachers to be worried about losing their jobs (for cause). We'll definately have to change the current rules. And when we try you know we'll see resistance. How do we minimize that resistance? I'd say money is the best answer.

If you explain to teachers that you're going to hold them accountable but you are also going to bump their salary 20% I think you'll see a lot of good teachers telling their unions to "go cheney themselves".

Davebo, i like the way you are thinking, but I think the politics of it are currently too strongly in the unions corner. At present, they expect that 20% bump and have no intention of giving consessions for it. So we already have an impass. Thats why i think conversations like this are great, instead of the usual slogans and relying on the conventional wisdom everybody lays their cards on the table and people can draw their own conclusion about who owns the 'moral highground' that seems to dominate the issue.

In other words, until the public (and hence the politicians) start to put real pressure for change on the system, i don't think we will see the fundamental changes necessary. Even if in the end it is ultimately to the benefit of the teachers themselves.

Mark,

It only has to happen in one district as a start. Any change such as the ones we've discussed will have to be implemented locally. Having the feds mandate such large changes is a really bad idea IMO.

Thanks for the discussion.

And I won't support vouchers until I see public support for raising taxes to pay for the additional mandate.

In the meantime I thought that the Minneapolis program, giving inner city kids the choice to attend suburban schools and creating new public charter schools in the inner city was both encouraging and financially doable.

Volkhousan

When you can’t argue a point on its merits or offer counter ideas then nit pick find one minor thing to contest and make personal attacks to complete the escape from facing the issues at hand.

It is a simple fact that we pay one of the highest per student cost for education in the world and get some of the lowest results. I that isn’t broken or destroyed I don’t know what is.

If you guys ever want to be anything more than the anti-bush-republican party you will need to come up with some ideas besides haha those guys are X.

Davebo

I don’t think I have heard anyone promoting vouchers as turning them into a tax rebate for those with or without kids to cash in. I wouldn’t support such myself either and I’m a “conservative Ideologue” just ask Vokhousan who knows all. Talk about a made up straw man then right on que into the personal attack on the evil greedy rich corporations where did that come from and how would they get a rebate.

The point of school vouchers is not to give tax rebates since the ONLY thing the voucher would be good for would be child education (of course due to human nature I imagine their would have to be some confirmation to prevent shady “schools” paying parents a rebate or such but what doesn’t have the possibility of fraud?).

The point of vouchers is to do two things

1) Get some competition into the education market to get more bang for the buck
2) And the major one here gets some fresh ideas and experimentation on the best way to educate our children. Vouchers will encourage fresh ideas to get better results and if it doesn’t work they will either adjust or lose market share to competition who did adjust or have better ideas.

There are a lot of different teaching ideas out their some work some don’t but the current system prevents easily spread of ideas & new techniques. Face it our current public schools were designed in the 30-40’s and the Unions will prevent any radical change even if it is needed. Even if we can get the public education system to adjust it will be a long hard battle resulting in minor changes that if they don’t work will take another huge hard battle to reverse or change again.

Vouchers would be a long-term fix rough at first but once going would continue to change and adapt itself to stay on top. Without all the partisan wrangling that even moving deck chairs get today. When it comes to fixing things doing nothing gridlock is as bad or worse than doing the wrong thing. At least doing the wrong thing you learn what don’t work.

I ask both of your what is your idea to fix the Public School system so America can compete in a world that is becoming much more educated (the old US education standard is soon to be surpassed by our foreign competition).

On the teacher pay part I don’t know if paying teachers what professionals make would be all that good. Not saying they don’t deserve it (how do you price education grooming of the future nation) but that making teaching a desirable job may draw better testing teachers but more “in it for the money” “it’s a job” kind of attitude teachers.

Teaching is one of those things that if you don’t like to do it and enjoy it caring about your work it just don’t work. Kids are not machines, engineering schematics or even business presentations they are humans.

Either way I would bet under a voucher system someone would try just what you talk about and if it worked others would follow if not well adjustment or replacement would follow. The best way is out their I personally believe vouchers would be the quickest way to find try and prove it.

I see vouchers as a solution in search of a problem, that just happens to agree with a "pro-market" bias among its' proponents.
I agree that the US primary/secondary education system is not performing at the highest levels globally. But if we look at those countries which beat the US on the PISA standardized tests for student achievement (most of Europe and industrialized Asia) they are not using voucher systems. Why not look at what works in those countries, rather than "privatizing" public education. Some voucher advocates are forthright in their opposition to public education and see vouchers as one step towards the end of public education. This would be a sad step backwards, since public education has been a part of civilization since the days of Ancient Greece. Maybe some "libertarians" want to go that far back.

C-Low responding to your earlier comment, I do not believe that I made any personal attacks.

Your comment contained a statement that was nonsensical and indefensible, yet is somehow often part of conservative rhetoric and ideology.
I merely called attention to how ridiculous your statement was.

If government destroyed everything that it touched the US would look like Somalia or New Orleans, yet my sewers flow in the right ditection and the traffic lights are almost synchronized. Certainly under Bush the federal government has set new standards for incompetence, but even the Bushies do not destroy everything they touch.

As a former teacher the problems I saw were:

1. Size. Organizations decrease in effectiveness as they get bigger, unless there is great attention paid to dealing with the size problem. Most districts are too big to act quickly.

2. Ed code. Regulations prevent effective education: getting rid of problem kids, disciplining others, procurement, staffing, spending on fairly useless stuff (bilingual education, etc).

3. No merit pay, caps on pay, organizations aimed at static don't rock the boat instead of innovation.

4. Emphasis on educational theory and various instructional fads instead of actually knowing your subject. You might see an English teacher with a Masters in Education who knows nothing about say, the poems of Wilfrid Owen and Randall Jarrell or the plays of Sean O'Casey.

5. PC run amok everywhere. Particularly in staffing, and various ethnic spoils systems.

To the extent that vouchers allow students and parents to flee from stifling beaurocracy (blame the Legislature not the unions guys), massive size, anti-innovation etc. it's a plus.

Good cooking and good teaching are not rocket science. They are also IMHO not something that scales well, or work with the frankly nutty theories of Dewey (Educational theory is a house of mirrors). That teachers know ten times more about theories of instruction and learning than their subject matter says it all.

Some illustrative material, all PDF files, unfortunately. 210 days in my local county, Jackson
(sorry pdf)
Roughly the same in one of the highest performing districts in the state, the Chapel Hill district
(sorry pdf)
Similar in one of the smallest in eastern NC, Gates County
There is a facility locally that is a teacher retreat/education center. It receives grants, has a foundation, and some state support to bring teachers in and one of the perks is that it pays for substitutes...quite a novelty in this state.

How do vouchers help parents in rural counties where distances are so great as to make it extremely difficult for folks to get kids to a school beyond their local one?

Pedrog,

They provide an incentive for interested folks to set up small schools in the area, or split up the existing building into more than one school via charter schools et al.

Note, too, the issues Jim Rockford points to. All are symptoms of a competitionless bureaucracy that has beco0me entranced with itself at the expense of its mission (vid. Public Choice economics theory). To take them all on together is near-impossible (and you'll sacrifice your child while you try), which is why reform is near-impossible without 2 critical injections:

[1] Performance standards that can be compared across geography between schools. Hence standardized tests.

[2] A situation in which PC and bureaucratic idiocies create more pain for those in charge than the political battles that will ensue when they are changed. Hence competition, informed in part by 1.

Like the man says, it's not rocket science.

"How do vouchers help parents in rural counties where distances are so great as to make it extremely difficult for folks to get kids to a school beyond their local one?"

Obviously no solution will solve every contingency, but even in such a case the vouchers might provide demand for building a new school in the area to compete with the old one. Or not. But if the original school was really bad there would seemingly be a great potential market for a competiting school to exploit.

Utah is first in non-smoking. OK.
California is second. I don't think California is 70 percent Mormon.