I think saying “the best” schools is a bit over the top rhetoric. But better schools for some of them isn’t a stretch.
None of this is going to help the bad parents providing a bad environment.
So, what’s the difference between your plan and, say, just allowing kids to pick which public school to attend in their city?
No, they won’t. The best schools don’t want poor children. Both because of class elitism, and because poor children tend to have problems, and would drag the performance of the school down. Schools get to be “the best” in large part by cherry picking their students; public schools get a bad reputation in large part because they have to take the students no one wants.
Several states and cities in the United States already have voucher programs that have helped thousands of students escape the public schools. For the most part, they meet the requirements you want. They are only available to families below a certain income level, they can only be used at accredited private schools, and there are restrictions on recepients raising their tuition. Vouchers have a positive track record, even as measured by the government’s own standards. For example, after Florida started providing vouchers for poor students about 14 years ago, standardized test scores rose. The gap between poor students and rich students narrowed, and so did the gap between blacks and Hispanics vs. whites. (Cite)
I know of no defensible reason why anyone would oppose implementing a similar proram nationwide. I’m glad to hear that you’re open to supporting vouchers. Unfortunately, as this thread shows, many people are dead set against them, despite their proven record of helping poor students and racial minorities.
I just spent 5 minutes on that report, but if I were to look for an example of the “correlation equals causation” fallacy, that would be my go-to.
You keep not addressing the issue of kids with uninvolved parents. There’s a pretty clear reason for that.
I assume you agree that there is a status quo. I’ve previously documented the fact that the government classifies almost half of its own schools as failing. It would not be hard to to find evidence that most poor kids attend failing public schools, and that it’s been this way for a long time.
When I look at what the priorities are for those who advocate more government and claim to support the poor, I see virtually no evidence that any of them are serious about reforming the public schools to give poor kids a good education. Once in a while, they’ll demand more money for public schools. More money doesn’t help though. In Nevada, for instance, per-student spending on education has almost tripled over the past 50 years. Performance, meanwhile, is flat or downward, as measured by test scores, dropout rates, or any other reasonable measure. Nationwide the story is similar. Plainly if any person is serious about wanting better education for the poor, they have to demand something besides throwing money at the problem.
So where’s the evidence that advocates of more government actually want to do anything that will give poor children a better education? If I don’t see any such evidence, shouldn’t I conclude that they’re willing to accept the status quo.
Oh? That’s news to me. Consider, as an example, the United States during its first 150 years of existence. Overall it experienced a massive increase in wealth, declines in poverty, declines in starvation, and declines in rates of many diseases. While some of this may be attributed to government programs, there’s no reason to believe that most of it was. Government anti-poverty programs were few in number and small in scope prior to the New Deal. What lifted so many millions out of poverty was economic freedom that allowed people to work their way out of poverty.
When over a million Irish fled starvation in Ireland and came to the USA in the mid-1800’s, they were not coming to experience our wonderful government handouts. When my great-great-grandparents left Czarist Russia for the USA, they didn’t come for the bureaucrats. Those groups and countless others came for the freedom and prosperity.
Huh? What exactly are you objecting to in that report? The report shows that Florida’s poor and minority children improved much more than those in any other state in the nation after they were given the chance to attend decent schools. Are you saying that these data are untrue, or are you claim that they’re true but that it’s just a coincidence? If the later, it would have to be a pretty incredible coincidence.
Florida is just one of many examples demonstrating how much good vouchers can do for poor children. Here, for instance, we learn that:
Ten empirical studies have used random assignment, the gold standard of social science, to examine how vouchers affect participants. Nine studies find that vouchers improve student outcomes, six that all students benefit and three that some benefit and some are not affected. One study finds no visible impact. None of these studies finds a negative impact.
So, if you take a group of poor students and split them randomly, giving vouchers to one half and not to the other, the half that get the vouchers will have better outcomes. That’s proper scientific technique. It shows that vouchers have a positive effect on poor students.
Tell me what the issue is. In post #58 you wrote some brief works of fiction. I see no need to respond to fiction. If you have factual evidence to back up your implication that poor kids–or at least many poor kids–just can’t be educated so it’s not the public schools fault when they don’t get education, I’ll be happy to look at it, but I’m not going to waste miy time with fiction.
They’re fiction only to the extent that I’m legally prevented from violating students’ privacy. In the identifiable particulars, they’re fiction. In the broad truths, they were four students that I had in a single year. Three of the students were the three lowest students in the class, the only ones I had who failed EOGs. YOur guess which of the four students passed the tests.
sob
You’re making me feel hopeless.
Wow.
You are not engaged in this conversation in good faith.
I don’t mean to do that. They’re good kids. And there are a lot of kids whose parents are in a position to support them. Heck, the kids with supportive parents might benefit from vouchers.
But the kids with parents who don’t support them in school–these kids need a good education, too, and vouchers won’t do anything for them except remove the involved parents from their school.
A solution to our educational crisis must address children in poverty, or it’s not going to work. It must have major components outside of the schools, or it’s not going to work.
This is where you and I disagree.
While I certainly agree that the home environment can be the most influential for students performance, I don’t feel that the government could or should interfere in the raising of children. I feel that is firmly in the parental domain. (Unless the government is willing to take the child from the parents)
That raises a whole host of other questions like how can the government help if they can’t directly affect parenting.
Promote safe sex. People need to realize that having kids (especially out of wedlock) is really fucking expensive and if you are already poor, the taxpayers will end up paying for that kid.
Now, the ultimate question that I’d love to see answered or even attempted:
How do you provide “enough” governmental assistance without creating a horde of reliance? Because to date, we have thoroughly sucked at it.
More and more people daily are becoming reliant on the system. It has to end.
I believe, again, that YOUR side (Republicans, conservatives, right-wing, etc) is the one that is fighting comprehensive sex education in favor of abstinence-only, and legally available and low-cost abortion in favor of “no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.”
Until the self-styled “rational” conservatives/libertarians clean the right-wing house a little, they’ve got no room to talk on an awful lot of subjects…
Honestly, I don’t much care about a “horde of reliance.” I’m in favor of some drastic budget priority reshuffling (e.g., reduce our military spending to equal that of the next two biggest militaries combined, drastically reduce criminal penalties for drug crimes, etc.), in order to ensure that we have a decent social safety net. If it ends up with a lot of losers who spend their lives on the dole, I honestly don’t worry too much about that, as long as it turns out to be affordable and efficient.
One time I think I heard Gore claim (he is your side right?) that he invented the internet, therefore you shouldn’t be using it.
All hogwash.
The promotion of safe sex or not, PEOPLE need to take responsibility for their actions and realize that the safety net is there to be used, not abused.
It is currently being abused.
Well, some of that was what I meant by opening up all kinds of questions. The “how-to” ones. Lots of people want drug crimes reduced or changed, seems to be that might be a fairly low hanging fruit, why does not one single politician promote it?
At first I was going to say I didn’t think I’d mind a bunch of government reliance but I do, in fact, mind, even if it was efficient and affordable.
I think people have a responsibility to themselves, their families, and society to do what they can.
I agree with the last sentence. However, I’m unwilling to devote an inordinate amount of resources to punishing irresponsible people, and I’m unwilling to let innocent people (e.g., the kids of irresponsible parents) suffer if there’s a cost-effective way to prevent that suffering.
I’m not suggesting I have easy answers, again. I’m suggesting that the easy answer on the table, like vouchers, are not answers at all. The canard about “failing schools” misdirects our attention to a large degree. Yes, there are definitely things we need to do to improve our schools; but anyone who’s spent time in a Title 1 school can tell you that Stand and Deliver is not a documentary, nor is it a realistic nationwide solution to our school’s troubles. We need to solve the problem by reaching beyond the school.
That’s a claim more controversial than you’re letting on. Take a look at Figlio and Rouse (2006):
Krueger and Zhu (2004) find that the NYC school choice program may have had little or no effect for minority students after accounting for race and baseline scores:
Cullen, Jacob, and Levitt (2006) find little impact of a school choice program in Chicago:
Rouse and Barrow (2009) offers a nice lit review (see its tables):
But one simply can’t perform a true statistical experiment in the social sciences. Even with purportedly random assignment, you still must confront the fact that those who choose to enter a school choice lottery may be (and probably are) systematically different from the population at large. When I look at the literature that’s what I see: after taking pains to compare apples to apples the impact of vouchers diminishes or disappears. Further, what about general equilibrium effects? What would private and religious schools start to look like if you gave everyone a voucher? Such a question can’t be addressed with a small experiment (or even many small experiments).
Now, I could play the devil’s advocate and point to something like Wolf (2008) —
Even that review is more a call for further experimental research than anything else, however, and the point remains: the possibility of a significant causal impact of voucher programs on academic achievement remains controversial. You should take better care to acknowledge and address the tenuousness of your claims.
Thanks for an awesome post, PR.
It seems pretty likely to me that the children of parents who are able and willing to navigate the bureaucracy are likely to benefit from increased educational choice, inasmuch as they’ll benefit from any increased resources. That’s not what I object to.
What I object to is the idea that this will benefit all kids. Specifically, kids of poor parents unable or unwilling to navigate the educational bureaucracy are likely to be harmed by voucher programs, as resources (both financial and immaterial) are siphoned away from their schools.
I further object to the entire body of assumptions behind the “failing school” label. Because that label is based entirely off high-stakes test scores, and because those scores correlate so strongly to socioeconomic status, they have a default position of calling a school a failure if it serves poor kids. This is an unjust blow to morale for the teachers and administration of such schools, and it provides a perverse incentive to teachers: a good teacher who has options available to her for employment is likelier to leave a failing school, leaving the worse teachers who have fewer options behind. Of course there are the saints who are willing to defy this incentive, but our educational system cannot, and should not, rely on sainthood.