That’s because they know the issue isn’t fixable. The schools themselves aren’t the problem. As Robert Weissberg notes in ‘Bad Students, Not Bad Schools’, the problem with bad schools is disruptive difficult students. The advantage of private schools is that they can insulate their students from them to some extent.
That is also the advantage of some charter schools, they have greater scope to kick out trouble makers.
I was wondering this too.
The question is not whether public school test scores would be higher once the discipline cases and special ed kids were removed. The question is whether public school test scores for students would match test scores for students at private schools, when dealing strictly with groups of students that were equal going in. The results of the study show that they would not. Two groups of students start out at the same level going into the school year; the group that went to private school had higher test scores at the end of the school year.
Perhaps you’re thinking that there are kids in public school who have the capability to do well, but they’re dragged down because they’re surrounded by all the bad kids, and that’s why their scores are so much lower than comparable kids in private school. If so, isn’t that an argument for giving vouchers to the smart public school kids so that they can escape into a private school where they won’t be dragged down and can thus get a decent education?
I will say that the combination of your user name and your statement amuse me.
I make no comment and your intelligence, but if you’re still clinging to the motivated parent issue then you obviously don’t understand how randomized design works and you didn’t read the study that I linked to. As it clearly explains, poor families from Charlotte’s public school population had the chance to enter a lottery for scholarships. Kids who won the lottery got a scholarship that allowed them to attend a private school of the parents choosing. Those who lost the lottery stayed in public schools. The decision was made at random. The study compares kids who won the lottery with those who lost the lottery, with the latter forming the control group. There was therefore no difference between the parents of kids in the control group and parents of kids who got scholarships and went to private schools. Differences in parental motivation can therefore not explain the difference in results between the two groups. That’s what a randomized design experiment is intended to accomplish. It rules out the possibility that any variable can affect the outcome other than the schooling given to the kids.
If you actually read my post, you would see I had already debunked your claim.
Try again…
I’ve read your post. I do not see that you’ve debunked my claim. All I see is you repeating talking points that I’ve debunked.
Here you go:
[QUOTE=your article]
Scholarships were awarded by lottery to families who went through an application process, because not enough funds were available to provide them to all the interested families.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Me, Your God-King]
Hmm. I wonder what sort of parent applies to a low probability lottery to get their kid into a better school.
[/QUOTE]
At the good old “ignore the research and attack the source” argument. Been awhile since I saw some desperate enough to use that one.
At risk of stating the obvious, what you posted is untrue. Charter schools, school vouchers, and merit pay are not corporate education reform policies.
Try again.
I fail to see how that “debunks” anything I said or is even relevant to anything that I said. It seems to be rhetorical question of some sort, but I have no idea what the answer is supposed to be or how it’s relevant to the topic. Presumably parents who try to get their kid out of failing public schools and into private schools are parents who want what’s best for their child, but as I’ve pointed out twice now, that’s irrelevant to the study at hand. It’s a randomized design, so all children in the study, both those who went to private school and those who went to public school, had the same type of parents. Hence, regardless of what’s true about parents of kids in the study, it won’t produce any differences in test scores between the two groups. Only the difference in schooling at private schools and public schools can produce the difference in test scores. If you want convince anyone that you’ve debunked this research study, perhaps you should post something that at least has a semblance of logic in it rather than merely embarrassing yourself by calling yourself “God-King”.
sigh It’s not randomized, because the study inherently selects scholarship students with motivated parents.
But this is true of the group that won the lottery, and the control group that did not. Both entered the lottery. So how does it skew the results?
Because there was an apparently significant (“noncomplying”) group which did win lottery seats and did not use them.
Apparently my God-king hasn’t got the slightest clue what a randomized design experiment is. Obviously only families who volunteer to be in the study are in the study. No scientist, except those lucky enough to work in Nazi concentration camps, has ever been able to force people to take part in research. Research with human subjects always involves volunteers. The scientist takes the group of volunteers and splits them randomly into a control group and a group that receives the treatment. This is known as a randomized experimental design, and it how virtually all good experiments are done. If you doubt that experiment involving volunteers are classified as randomized, look it up in any good textbook that covers the topic or just read this.
You failed to mention that the study contains a lengthy discussion of the noncomplying group. For convenience sake, here it is:
Even as favorable a research design as a lottery is
susceptible to the problems of nonparticipation and
noncompliance. If students with similar demographic
characteristics drop out of the study in large enough
numbers, they can upset the balance between the
experimental and control groups, rendering them
less comparable.But my data show that the incomes
of the participating and nonparticipating families
were roughly equal for both the lottery winners
and losers, as well as for the choice, control,
and noncomplying students. In other
words, while those who participated in my
study differed somewhat from those who did
not, the differences don’t appear to have biased
the comparability of the groups.
My primary interest lies in identifying the
effect of using a scholarship to attend private
school, not the effect of a student’s being
offered a scholarship but not using it. I therefore
want to compare the choice students,
the students who used a scholarship to attend
private school, with the control and noncomplying
students, the two groups who
entered the lottery but ultimately stayed in
public schools. Overall, the choice students
and the comparison groups were quite similar
in their demographic characteristics,
though clearly not identical. The test-score
data were adjusted statistically to account for
any observed differences between the two
groups, such as level of family income—an important
predictor of academic performance—that might
have biased the results. In calculating the results, I
controlled for a host of background characteristics,
including the mother’s educational level, her race, the
student’s family income, whether a student lived in
a two-parent household, and the student’s sex.
Concern about the unobserved differences between
families who send their children to public and private
schools has always limited scholars’ ability to
draw conclusions from evaluations of public- and
private-school performance.Even after adjusting for
observed demographic differences, researchers always
wondered whether unobserved differences that were
not being accounted for, such as parental motivation
or the intellectual richness of home life, played a
larger role than the schools themselves in causing differences
in academic performance between public and
private schools.
In this case, however, the application process and
lottery have produced comparison groups that are
already quite similar on observed as well as (in all likelihood)
unobserved characteristics.All families were
motivated enough to complete an application for a
scholarship.Only low-income families were eligible
for a scholarship. A lottery was used to select which
students would be offered scholarships, creating, as
the statistical analysis has confirmed, two groups
that were nearly identical. While noncompliance
and nonparticipation have created differences
between the two groups, they are similar enough that
adjusting for observed characteristics is likely to
produce highly reliable results.
So what the study is saying is that motivated students with motivated parents do better in an environment surrounded by motivated students from affluent families than they do in an environment surrounded by unmotivated students from poor families.
Boy, that’s some rocket surgery, that is.
But it still does not explain what would happen in private schools if they were required to take all of those unmotivated poor students, like the public schools are.
Great idea. Except it only works if the vouchers fully cover the cost of the school. Most voucher systems I have seen only subsidize those families that would have gone to private school anyway.
Then there is the question of what happens to the kids left in public school. The public schools are left with the kids who will not be accepted by private schools because they cost more to teach. And since the public schools loose a specific amount per kid who goes private, they will have less money and fewer resources for those students.
Vouchers will be boon for the wealthy, skim off the cheapest and highest scoring kids, and impoverish those unfortunates that are forced to remain.
I would be willing to bet that if you took the lottery losers and put them in a public school without any discipline or crime issues, where everyone had to apply to get in, the could be removed easily at any time for failing to meet either behavior or academic standards, and all of whose parents are heavily involved and committed to the success of their student and the school as a whole you would see their test scores rise as well.
This is not just an issue with private schools. Not all public schools perform equally (there was a whole chapter of Freakanomics on it. I have also seen it where I live. The school my son goes to is highly rated. There is a hugely active PTA and a lot parent involvement. Move over a half mile and the school rank is half as high. Even though the demographics of the areas are almost identical, that school is in a lot more trouble and much less parental involvement. Why? Because people are willing to pay a 10-20% surcharge to live in the better school area and the motivated parents still in the less performing area line up at 6 in the morning to transfer to another school. Half the parent volunteers in our child’s class are parents of transfer students. Sure they make our school better, but at the cost of the kids who can’t get out of the other school.
Since he doesn’t supply the underlying data, I am not particularly inclined to believe him when he acknowledges a divergence in income but then handwaves it away as insignificant.
I think we’re arguing just for the sake of arguing at this point, though; as redtail reiterates, my original issue remains.
The biggest advantage that private schools have? They can expel disruptive students. The public schools have to take everyone, and put up with acting out, and near-criminal behavior. One disruptive child can bring a classroom to a halt. What do you do with a 16 year old who has been suspended 25 times in a semester?
There isn’t any point in arguing about the cited article. It doesn’t explain anything about the difference is public and private schools that lead to the effect. It primarily states that methodology selected equivalent students for study and they did better in private school, except for the basic ideology that private is better than public, the predetermined conclusion the study was designed to find. It pretends that parental motivation was removed from the equation through random selection, ignoring the fact that the parents of the private school students were motivated to move their children from public to private school.
I’d be very interested in knowing which voucher programs you’ve seen. Let’s take a look at a few:
The D. C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is only for families earning less than 185% of the federal poverty line.
The Indiana Choice Scholarship Program is only for families earning less than 150% of the cutoff for the free lunch program.
Louisiana’s Student Scholarships for Education Excellent Program is only for families earning less than 200% of the poverty line and currently in a public school that receives bad marks from the state–most such schools, unsurprisingly, serve poor students.
The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program is only for families earning less than 300% of the federal poverty line.
Virginia’s Educational Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit will only be for students earning less than 300% of the federal poverty line or those with special needs.
In the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, students from families beneath 200% of the federal poverty line are required by law to have priority over others.
So in short, I’m not seeing a lot of evidence to back up your claim that vouchers would be a boon for the wealthy, since in most cases that I’ve seen the wealthy can’t use them. Rather it’s the poor and in some cases the lower middle class who can and do use them. One would think that a party such as the Democrats which claims to be in favor of the interests of the poor and middle class would be strongly in favor of vouchers, but they are not.
This argument is unconvincing on several counts. First, vouchers tend to cost little compared to public schools. The first link in my previous post has the cost of a voucher in D.C. at $8,000 per year for grades K-8 and $12,000 per year for grades 9-12, in comparison to over $20,000 per year for public school students. The figure for public school sources seems to be wrong. According to Census data here (page 31) D.C. has enrollment of 43,866 and education expenditures of $1,195,934,000, for a per-pupil cost of $27,263 per year.
If a poor kid at one of D.C.'s awful public schools takes his $8,000 voucher and heads to a private school to get a good education, the public school system is left with more money per pupil, not less. The research study that I linked to earlier mentions that in Charlotte, the voucher costs a lot less than the per pupil spending in public schools, yet private school students still get vastly better results.
Secondly, there’s no particular reason to believe that more money for public schools will lead to better education. Based on graduation rates, many of the places in America that spend the most on education get terrible results.
Thirdly, research has already been done asking what effects voucher programs have on public schools in the area. The results are clear:
Nineteen empirical studies have examined how vouchers affect outcomes in public schools. Of these studies, 18 find that vouchers improved public schools and one finds no visible impact. No empirical studies find that vouchers harm public schools.
So regarding your question of “what happens to the kids left in public school”, the answer is that they benefit enormously.