And that’s just the problem. Kids with parents who don’t give a crap have big problems now, but in your system you might as well outfit them with their welfare application and crack dealers badge, because they’ll have no hope at all. Wanna bet that recruiters from some schools will kickback voucher money to parents who send their kids, and make it up by no books, hardly any teachers, and some gorillas to keep the peace? Do you think an environment where vouchers get passed is going to be an environment where the private schools get heavily regulated? It’ll be just like the present mess - deregulate, nothing can go wrong, the market can sort it out. And when it does go wrong, it will all be the fault of the parents (true,) no one could have possibly anticipated any problems, and too bad about the kids.
BTW, I agree that just throwing money at the problem won’t help. If we ever get to the point where the average kid fantasizes about getting into MIT just as much as getting into the NBA, we won’t have a problem anymore.
That’s not a relevant question. The question is how well they’ll stack up against below average public schools.
Some will, which is enough to provide more incentive for improvement than currently exists in the public school system. Others won’t, of course, but how much worse off will their kids actually be than they are now? They’d have apathetic parents who will tend to pick their schools poorly, as opposed to the current system in which they have apathetic parents who have no choice but to pick the (presumably deficient) local school.
They have no hope at all now. And I can’t see a scenario under any type of school scenario where they will have hope because their problem is not one of public funding or policy, but a fundamental lack of personal pride on behalf of the parents and, by default, the children.
That is an issue that, IMHO, religion and morality should play a large part in, but that’s another issue.
But these inner-city kids will certainly be no worse off than they currently are, but under the voucher plan, the kids who WANT to learn will not be trapped in these hell holes.
It seems as if since the program would only help 90% of the kids then we should trash the idea since it does nothing to help the other 10%.
It amazes me that this topic is here today because at my daughter’s day care, the “lottery” results were announced which told which lucky parents got to send their kids to private school instead of the shit public school that they were assigned. (This is under Florida’s watered-down school choice program)
And to the other poster that mentioned resegregation: Isn’t that apples and oranges? I mean, segregation was enforced by penalty of law that said certain races could only go to certain schools. If child X wanted to go to school Y, he could have been prohibited solely because of his race.
Isn’t it a totally different situation when free choice is involved and it happens through voluntary means that a racial disparity might occur? Wasn’t the “crime” of segregation the force of law making blacks seem unequal?
School vouchers do not pay for the best schools. They do not really level the playing field for poor kids. In Arizona, apparently 76% of the people who used the vouchers already had kids in private schools, so it was just a discount for wealthy people and didn’t actually help poor kids get a better education.
No one has addressed my point about economies of scale, which I have seen for myself is demonstrably true-- smaller schools do not have the same facilities to offer kids. The special programs mentioned by Weirddave for new schools already exist in the public school system. So you’re just suggesting more of the same, Dave, just as you accused me of doing. Except my ideas would augment the existing infrastructure, not reinvent the wheel.
And the final coup de grace to this bad idea: There is evidence that the test scores aren’t actually better in private schools than public schools. That kinda defeats the whole purpose of them, doesn’t it? Assuming that the tests do measure basic competencies, of course.
Why is that a problem? Some people can afford to go to Yale, others have to make do with a local night-school, others who can only afford the night-school get scholarships for Yale.
Are there any statistics out there that show how well private schools do vs. public schools, using the same cross-section of students that public schools are required to serve? All things being even, are private schools actually better?
I’d like to see a study that factors in attendance. E.g. if a kid in an inner-city school is truant half the time, how can the school be held responsible? You can’t teach a kid who isn’t there…
Also, I think a possible approach is to pre-test and post-test. When Johnny Jones enters high school, test. After four years, test. Subtract the entrance from the exit: how many grades did Johnny progress? Maybe he graduated with a 9th grade reading ability and people say that sucks. But if he entered with a 1st grade reading ability, the school did a hell of a job.
ISTM that it is saying that private schools on average do a better job than public schools in reading. Conservative Christian schools do the same as public schools in reading.
In math, Lutheran private schools do significantly better than public schools, Catholic private schools do the same, and Conservative Christian schools do worse. Overall, private schools do about as well (adjusted for student characteristics) as public schools in math.
So, if your kid is average, then he will do better at a private school. If he is below average, he will do about the same.
The good news is that the Ivy’s are becoming free for low income kids. But here’s the problem. Why is Yale better than Podunk State Community College? It’s because it is selective, and it draws some of the best students, and therefore some of the best teachers, and thus some of the best grants. That’s fine since by 17 kids have sorted themselves out. But why enforce such difference on 2nd graders?
Say you have a smart second grader with not so good parents. Under the current system, though things are tough, he or she might meet good teachers and the few other good students in a public school, some of whom will have parents who are poor but supportive. Under a voucher system she’ll be trapped. There seems to be an assumption that the kid will choose - in high school, maybe, but not in elementary school.
We can either try to fix the problem for everyone, or we can abandon whole bunches of kids based on their parents income and level of concern.
Test scores depend on the kids - not the building. They might depend on the teachers, but I certainly see no evidence that private school teachers are better than public school ones. Given the level of pay, you wouldn’t expect better teachers than in a reasonably safe suburban school.
A few years ago, in our district, one elementary school got redistricted into the area of a high school with lower average scores. The parents had a fit. But their kids, who got the benefit of their fanatical devotion to education, actually have done just as well. The “better” school had a worse physical environment than the new school, and teachers of the same caliber.
My parents got great educations in crappy urban schools. My father, after age 10, was terribly poor. Vouchers are not going to fix the culture, they will just let us get the kids falling behind out of our sight.
You missed the minus sign. “The average difference in adjusted school means between Conservative Christian schools and all public schools was -7.6 points (i.e., a higher average school mean for public schools) and was significantly different from zero.”
The way I read it your kid will do the about the same. The adjusting they are doing is not for whether your kid is average or not, its socio economic factors and mandatory education factors - i.e. private schools don’t need an ESL program (generally) so they pull kids who speak English as a second language out of both private and public schools. i.e. a smart kid will do well in a public school or a private school. A average kid will do average in a private school or a public school. A below average kid is below average.
It says that, if you equalize for the different variables to make their student populations represent the same cross section as public schools, private schools do the same or worse than public schools as a whole.
See above.
No, it says that for any given student category, they’ll do as well or better in most areas in a public school.
Read the full PDF (66 pages) to see all of the different details, if you’d like. I have no clue why that data has been mostly ignored in the various responses here, when I brought it up in the 8th post in this thread.
Don’t forget that ALL students in the public school have to take the state exams, at least in NY. This includes kids who have serious learning disabilities, kids who have MR, kids who don’t speak English yet. Everyone who can hold a pencil or dictate an answer to a scribe must take it. All the scores count towards the school’s overall scores. Presumably, the private school does not have students such as these taking their tests, so their scores are going to be higher by virtue of that alone. Adjusting for that is necessary to have an accurate comparison.
Sorry, my bad - I said “average” when I meant “a student who is not socio-economically disadvantaged and is a native speaker of English” and the other factors mentioned.
I read it as “the same or better”.
IOW, even after adjusting, private schools did better. In math -
The fact that Lutheran schools do much better offsets the fact that Conservative Christian schools do worse.
So ISTM that the study says what I thought - private schools do as well or better in reading and as well in math, overall.
It might seem that way to you, but we’re reading different studies then, or you’re wearing those “special” glasses again.
Grade 4 Reading, Private does -1.1 worse. Math, -4.1 worse.
Grade 8 Reading, Private does 5.7 better, Match, -0.6 worse.
Out of four different result sets, private school outperformed public in only one area, while public fared better in the other three areas. Two of them were fairly close, but the facts still stand that the public schools did as well or better overall. If you really want to combine the trends into a “sound-bite” formation, I’d say private schools are better overall in reading, and worse overall in math, using this study.
By the way, where there were statistically significant differences found, I’d question whether or not those were actually practical differences - the mean score is in the 200s and we are quibbling over 6 points.