That’s odd. When I read the post by randroid, all the research that’s quoted in it looks like it’s saying that vouchers have positive effects on the children who use them that there’s improvement in nearby public schools when voucher threats are implemented. In other words, his post confirms that my claim was right and that your claim is wrong. Given that, it’s rather odd that you’d say that randroid’s post proves “the exact opposite of this claim”. What’s your basis for saying that?
Do you have any substantial criticism of any of the 29 research studies that are summarized in that PDF? Can you give any fact-based reasons for not trusting them?
The substantial criticism is in post #189, where I point out that the premise of the source is flawed. Again, if competition creates better schools, let the public schools compete with each other. And if more money means betters schools, then fund schools better. The basic logic of your citation is flawed or contradictory to typical conservative claims and so therefore the studies it cites to back up its claims would be similarly erroneous.
Now, why don’t you answer the questions I posed to you?
-
If competition creates betters schools, why not allow all students to go to any public school, thus keeping the competition and the money in the public school system?
-
If more money means better schools, why not give more money to the public school system? This shows that the US spent about $71 billion in education last year. I’m sure if we doubled that and took some money out of defense, or use the money that we’ll save once Obamacare is implemented, we would have much better schools. There’s no reason why we can’t have updated computers, textbooks, and other resources in public schools except there no will to make that happen
“Odd” is putting it mildly. He shows that there’s never been a causal relationship established that you’ve claimed, so it may well be other reforms that account for any difference, and that in any case gains are often so mild as to be indistinguishable from noise. How you see that as supporting your claim is is odd.
I do not believe we’ve established any such thing; I believe you are mistaken. But let’s take this last sentence only: your claim that vouchers usually lead to an increase in public school spending per student. If we’ve “established” that this is true, I apologize for having missed it: please provide just the url to the study that establishes such a thing. If you want to provide the quote, that’d be great, but just the url would be fine.
The 29 studies that are summarized in the paper are empirical, whereas your argument is theoretical. When we have a theoretical statement, we should, if possible, perform experiments to tell whether the theory matches reality. If someone offers a theoretical claim that cigarettes prevent lung cancer, should we blindly believe it, or should we look at the scientific evidence on the matter? You can oppose that approach if you want to, and decide to continue believing your theory even when all the available evidence contradicts it, but that puts you against the general leaning of scientific research and this message board.
That said, your theory from post #189 has already been proven wrong. You said “Bad schools are bad because they don’t have the funds to expand class sizes or buy textbooks or provide the basic services that a public school should provide.” I previously linked (twice) to this article, which documents that many of the big urban districts that spend the most money (per student) get terrible results in their public schools. Lack of money is not the problem. The nature of the schools, the bureaucracy, and the politicians in these districts is the problem, and that’s why poor students who escape from the public schools using vouchers do better.
I’d happily support a system whereby poor parents in failing school districts were allowed to take their money to other public schools. The Democratic politicians, teachers unions, and media naysayers who oppose vouchers generally oppose that sort of school choice as well. But there’s no advantage to keeping the money in the public school system, so why not instead let those parents take their money to the school of their choice, public or private? What makes school choice solely within the public system better?
You’re flat wrong in saying that the US spent about $71 billion in education last year. That’s the budget for the federal Department of Education. Overall, governments spent almost a trillion dollars on education in this country, while private charities, businesses, and individuals chipped in even more. There is no conceivable measure whereby the U.S. education system is not rolling in money. As already shown, many of the school districts with the highest spending get the worst results. Over the last 40 years, nationwide spending on education has soared while results have not improved. American students have plenty of expensive computers and textbooks; what they don’t have is good results to show for it.
Quick question: if conservatives think that the government providing vouchers for children to use for private schools is a good thing, does that also mean that providing vouchers for adults to use to buy private health insurance is also a good thing?
Just checking.
NO!!! That’s taking money from rich people and giving it to poor, lazy, people. Also, socialism. Those poor people should get jobs and pay for their own health care.
I love watching conservatives try to support school vouchers, apparently blissfully unaware of the fact that the vouchers violate virtually all of their most dearly held principles.
Along the same lines, I’m waiting for a conservative to advocate forcing people to undergo drug testing to get school vouchers. For some reason they seem to have overlooked this segment of lazy, mooching 47-percenters.
D.C.'s opportunity scholarship program costs $8,000 a year for K-8 students and $12,000 a year for 9-12 students. The D.C. public schools spend $27,000 per year per student. (The government also appears to lie about how much they spend.)
North Carolina’s Opportunity Scholarships are not more than $4,200, while public schools in the state spend more than twice that per student.
And likewise you can look up the figures for voucher costs vs. public school costs for any other voucher program; the story is the same. If you want to claim that vouchers lead to reduced per-student spending in public schools, perhaps you could offer a citation.
Has this been seriously addressed yet, ITR champion?
Let’s review what the evidence has found. Quoting from the paper by Dr. Forster:
Twelve empirical studies have examined academic outcomes for school choice participants using random assignment, the “gold standard” of social science. Of these, 11 find that choice improves student outcomes—six that all students benefit and five that some benefit and some are not affected. One study finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found a negative impact.
Twenty-three empirical studies (including all methods) have examined school choice’s impact on academic outcomes in public schools. Of these, 22 find that choice improves public schools and one finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found that choice harms public schools.
Six empirical studies have examined school choice’s fiscal impact on taxpayers. All six find that school choice saves money for taxpayers. No empirical study has found a negative fiscal impact.
Eight empirical studies have examined school choice and racial segregation in schools. Of these, seven find that school choice moves students from more segregated schools into less segregated schools. One finds no net effect on segregation from school choice. No empirical study has found that choice increases racial segregation.
Seven empirical studies have examined school choice’s impact on civic values and practices such as respect for the rights of others and civic knowledge. Of these, five find that school choice improves civic values and practices. Two find no visible impact from school choice. No empirical study has found that school choice has a negative impact on civic values and practices.
So you say “gains are often so mild as to be indistinguishable from noise”. Well, no need to be imprecise. Of the dozens of studies summarized in Dr. Forster’s paper, exactly how many of them as “so mild as to be indistinguishable from noise”? Could we get an actual number?
You also say that no causal relationship has been established. Well, we’re looking at twelve studies that used random assignment: a group of poor students was taken and some were chosen at random to get vouchers, while others were left in the public schools. Eleven of those studies showed that the voucher group had better academic outcomes on average, one shows no difference, none shows that the voucher group had worse outcomes. If you think that there’s not any causal relationship between vouchers and improved academic performance, then what is your explanation for why, in those eleven studies, the voucher group did better on average?
What does a prospective college student do with Stafford Loans if no college or university will admit him?
What does a senior citizen do with Medicare if none of the doctors in the area take Medicare patients?
What does a poor person do with a housing voucher if none of apartment complexes in the area take them?
Obviously if the government offers a voucher or some other subsidy for something, and a person has no opportunity to use that thing, then the person doesn’t use the subsidy. That’s pretty straightforward. But no one suggests that student loans are a bad thing just because some people don’t get into college, so why would anyone suggest that vouchers are a bad thing just because some students can’t get into private schools? The worst that could happen is that the student remains in the same public school. Since the scientific evidence shows that voucher programs correlate with improvements in nearby public schools, that student will still benefit.
None of this, as near as I can tell, addresses your claim that
“Voucher programs therefore usually lead to an increase in public school spending per student.” Can you give an example–say, North Carolina–and show how much each voucher increases the per-student spending on public education?
Your mistake is in attributing the theory to me, when in fact it is the conclusion drawn by your own cite.
This is their conclusion, and I’m simply taking that and applying it to public schools. If competition is good, why can’t we have the same outcome by letting public schools compete with each other? Can you answer that?
And the theory about money is the same: your own citation lauds, as a positive, that more money in vouchers lead to more money spent per student in public schools, thus improving them. So if that is the case, why not take the money for the vouchers and add more money to it and give it all to the school?
Pair both of these together and you have competition and more money. Seems like a win-win for you, I wonder why you’re trying to run away from it? :dubious:
You mean YOUR theory is wrong. Or is your PDF’s contention that once the voucher students are gone and spending goes up per student in public schools, that is a negative? You’re arguing with yourself here
Second, did you even read your own cite? I think the author undermines his argument even more than you do when you cite him. He wants the takeaway to be that more spending doesn’t improve graduation rates and student performance, but the critique goes the other way as well. There’s no reason to laud school districts for spending little if spending has nothing to do with it. What you should be doing is the exact opposite and make a case that less spending is more helpful to students.
You also claim that lack of money is not a problem, but I bet Alpine doesn’t have a 124 person officer security force like Camden does, nor are they devoting over 40% of their budget to support for underachieving students. Some of these costs between the two districts are not comparable, which adds to the discrepancy. Unfortunately, your cite only shows total cost but does not break down how much of that is spent on each aspect of schooling. Nor can the article simply handwave away the cost of living as entirely teacher salary based. Cost of living is more than just teacher salaries, its everything.
I’m gonna need a cite for that that is more than just one or two people saying they’re against it
If money doesn’t matter, why shouldn’t they keep it with public schools? Even before we get to arguing about the benefits of student spending, here are tangible reasons why public money should stay in public schools: private schools don’t have the same regulations (if any), not paying for religious education, its supposed to stay there because that’s what the public is paying for, private schools can raise their money privately, the ability of the public to vote to decide how public schools are run vs. a private one. Even if you think private schools may spend it better, it doesn’t even get into those other reasons.
You’re right, I messed up and confuted the DoE’s spending with total. However, its a separate issue from your claim that the US education system is rolling in money. We spend a lot but there is no magical sweet spot of spending that you can compare with to say we’re spending too much or too little. What’s enough? Some schools can do a lot with a little, some schools cannot. You’re claiming we spend too much by citing studies showing that spending has nothing to do with it while at the same time claiming that spending less is better. Maybe NJ needs that $23000 to maintain their current level, maybe less money will drop their graduation rate even more. Saying you know its because we’re not using vouchers is interesting because I wonder if you had even asked this question: Is Alpine, Utah even using vouchers?
Jesus Christ, this is the EXACT SAME STUDY that randroid refuted in post 86. Do you forget that we can go back and look at that post?
Good God, and we’ve already multiple times pointed out the idiocy of that article, namely, that children in poverty often require more services than children in a wealthy environment, and that those services, while helpful, aren’t a panacea, and that you therefore end up with a greater cost for children with worse outcomes through no fault of the school.
I fully expect that in a few days you’ll link yet again to these two shitty sources, having completely forgotten the refutations of them both. It’s like talking with a goldfish.
Hey, do you want to know two reasons why DC per-student funding is so high?
-
DC has something like 4 times the rate of special needs students, often because of things like emotional disturbances.
-
DC often pays the full cost of having special needs students attend private schools. Apparently at a cost of $64,000 per student (1,700 students, total cost $109 million).
Private school: what a bargain!
I think there are a couple of approaches to education reform:
-Approaches by people who don’t know shit about education but who are economic ideologues and who therefore regard all public employees in general, and teachers in particular, as The Enemy, and who cherry-pick research to support their preconceptions.
-Approaches by educators who’ve devoted their lives to pedagogy and who know how schools work, where they succeed, where they fail, and how to change failures into successes.
A great example of the latter type of reformer is Richard Dufour, a major proponent of the Professional Learning Community model. It’s a model built on mutual accountability for results among members of a team of educators who collaborate on building best practices to serve students.
And yes, I know that sounds like a mouthful of buzzwords, but in practice it’s the best education reform I’ve seen yet: it means that a team of educators define what success will look like and establish assessments for the team’s students, then teach their subject, then administer the assessments, then evaluate the assessments and determine next steps, be they remediation, enrichment, or further education for some members of the team.
That’s results-based reform, not some Ayn-Rand knockoff imaginary reform.
I support vouchers for schools, and I would be interested in seeing how a voucher program could work for medical care as well.
I also support the existing education voucher programs for higher education in the Pell Grant system and the federally subsidized student loan programs. Funny how Liberals don’t seem to be fighting to shut down those evil programs, in favor of only allowing money to be used in a local public university of college.
But people are funny, huh.
They remain in the public school system.
Earlier in this thread I stated that the one issue I see with vouchers is that in some districts the public schools would become the school of last resort for those students that other places do not want for a variety of reasons.
Funny how I never see those programs being funded by cutting the budget of the public colleges.