It’s funny how the same people who complain about the greed of union members will bend over backwards to defend the CEO’s high salary. Why exactly is it that wanting to make more money is a boon to society when people above a certain income level do it but a detriment to society when people below that level do it? If teachers are hurting society by wanting to make more money, aren’t business executives hurting society by wanting to make more money? What exactly is the salary level where self-interest becomes a virtue? When does greed become good?
So Chile’s educational results are better since the creation of a voucher system, and better than other South American countries that don’t have a voucher system. And this means that the voucher system has “failed pretty spectacularly”.
As the article notes, there are large cultural differences between Chile and the USA.
In some circumstances it would be highly advisable. There are some places in the USA where drop-out rates from public high school are well over 50%, where the percentage of students passing standardized tests is in the single digits, where virtually no students go on to college, and where, by any measure, educational outcomes are terrible for almost all students. If a voucher program targeted at those specific failing schools managed to provide a good education for 80% of the students, as opposed to the current program that provides a good education to close to 0% of the students, that would be a large improvement. But even if the improvement were only for a small percentage of students, it would still be an improvement, and thus better than the status quo. Voucher opponents continually howl about how, if we allowed the most driven students to escape from failing public schools, then those who didn’t escape would be “abandoned”. But currently all, or at least most, of the students in failing public schools are abandoned, so why shouldn’t rescuing some of them be preferable to rescuing none of them?
Or to put it another way, let’s imagine a poor student (“Bob”) who is smart enough to succeed, but is currently stuck in a failing public school, surrounded by the ‘the disabled, the lazy, and the poor’. If Bob remains in this school, he won’t get a decent education. If he gets a voucher and escapes to a private school, he will get a good education. Why is it fair to deny Bob access to a good education, merely because of the other students who currently surround him?
If the children of wealthy Democrats were in Bob’s place, political action would be taken immediately. But as noted, wealthy Democrats send their children to private schools. They can afford to do so, and they’re indifferent to the plight of Bob.
I don’t recall when I “bent over backwards to defend the CEO’s high salary”. Perhaps you could remind me of when I did so.
Personally I feel that we should give less government subsidies to the biggest corporations. Those corporations would then make less money, and the salaries of the CEOs would fall accordingly. My approach is exactly opposite that of the Democratic Party, which is constantly fighting for more subsidies for the biggest corporations, and thus guaranteeing that CEOs will earn more. But we’re wandering off topic.
No reason, that is, except the evidence.
This is a link to the magazine sent to NEA members. Sure, some of the articles are about teacher pay and about terrible reform efforts and the like. But other articles include:
-How Physical Fitness May Promote School Success
-Are We Failing Gifted Students?
-Why I’m a Common Core Advocate
-Childhood Obesity Awareness Month – September
People who claim that unions aren’t passionate about the quality of education are, charitably speaking, ignorant. Uncharitably speaking, they’re lying to you.
The people in the world who are most passionate about education quality are people who’ve devoted their lives to it: teachers. Trusting a Republican think tank to be sincere on the issue is like listening to wolves recommend design improvements to the sheep pen.
False logic. You have not shown the public schools are failing, nor that you automatically get a good education in a private school. In fact since many private school teach creation science, that is proof that you don’t always get a good education there. **Creation science= bad education. **
To be sure there are advantages to going to private schools- better security for example. But lots of wealthy Republicans send their kids to private schools, too, and note they seem indifferent on how to fix the school system focusing entirely on teaching to the Bible or fighting teachers Unions.
The Republicans are not indifferent on how to fix the school system, they want to fix it with privatization. The public school system is “broken” (apparently), so the problem must be the “public” part.
Thing that strikes me, though, is how often the term “for profit” appears in discussions about private schools. Curious that the profit motive is the only way to deliver a service like education. Non-profit (secular) or co-operative approaches are not even on the radar. Only institutions interested in making a profit are capable of providing the children with a stellar education. Not sure I get why that is.
So a metastudy that does not use one piece of quantitative testing is ok with you? As I pointed out, the study did not use any studies that demonstrates that vouchers improve student achievement in any meaningful way. Instead it uses studies that show that if you pick something you tend to attach better qualities to it than if something is chosen for you. Is that a surprise?
And as I pointed out, in an empirical study can indicate improvement but like Greene’s study, it indicates that students on vouchers did better than their peers. We have no way of knowing the demographics of the students that chose to use the vouchers. Where they ELL students, Sped students, if the parent had to drive their student to the new school is there a socio-economic variable at work?
Also, we concluded that the voucher students got somewhere around 2 more questions right on average on the ITBS but without statistical test (which for this data would be easy to do), there is no way to know if that result was significant or within the realm of randomness. Instead we get the claim that since the score was better obviously it was because of the vouchers which is an error no researcher should make.
Care to counter that?
The difference seems to be that Democrats send their kids to private schools while they work on finding solutions to the problems in the public school system. Republicans think that sending their kids to private schools is the solution to the problems in the public school system.
I support McAulliffe (mostly because Cuccinelli is nucking futz) but I agree, he is a limousine liberal. So?
McAulliffe lives in one of the best school districts around here. He isn’t sending his kids to potomac due to the poor quality of the schools in McLean, VA. http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/virginia/districts/fairfax-county-public-schools/mclean-high-school-20452
There are all sorts of other reasons people send their kids to private schools like Potomac.
But they support charter schools (or at least Obama does), so its not like they categorically oppose school choice. What differences do you see between a voucher program and charter schools that would make a voucher program preferable?
If you had a voucher program that required that:
the voucher be the only payment the private school can accept;
the private school would have to accept anyone that shows up at their doorstep with a voucher (perhaps conduct a lottery if too many people show up with a voucher); and
the private school would have to have an acceptable curriculum, facilities and faculty,
then it would priobably have less opposition.
Here’s what happens here in DC:
The vouchers program here in DC is fairly small and doesn’t cover the tuition at private schools (maybe at some of the catholic schools). So the schools that take the students just give them a scholoarship for the difference and people are fairly lax about acceptance criteria because its such a small program. If we gave every student a voucher, the dynamic would change. The schools wouldn’t be able to provide scholarships for the difference to all the students that wanted to attend, the schools would have to become much more selective in the voucher students it accepted and you would end up with something muich closer to a charter school program picking up the vast amjority of the students that wanted to opt out of the public school system.
The private schools aren’t just selective in who they accept, they are selective in who they keep. Every year, schools like Potomac don’t send a registration package out to some of its prior year students and suggest that some other schools might be a better fit for the student. Sometimes this is disciplinary, sometimes its academic but they cull the herd every year in a way that allows the ejected students to leave the school gracefully. So you can’t really compare ther esults you get from private schools with teh results you get from public schools.
A lot of the drive behind the voucher drive comes from two places. Religious nuts who want the government to fund their born again christian version of a madrassa and middle class folks who want the government to subsidize their decision to send their kids to private schools.
Whenever I hear someone talk about vouchers without mentioning charter schools, it makes me think that they aren’t really concerned about “school choice” you are concerned about something else. Whether that is destroying public education, or funding religious schools, or subsidizing tuition for people who don’t need the subsidy, i’ve never seen a good reason to support vouchers but not charter schools.
I am familiar with the DC program and it wouldn’t work if all the private schools involved didn’t make up the difference with a scholarship. It cannot be replicated on a larger scale.
Most of the programs will not cover the cost of attending private school so is really not a practical program for people in shitty neighohoods trying to escape failing schools.
I live in Virginia and I;m not familiar with the Virginia program. How is the Virginia program a voucher program? I don’t really understand how tax credits work. You donate money to a non-profit and you get a tax credit? that sounds like a funding mechanism not a school choice mechanism.
:dubious:
The problem is that the Democrat believe in “no child left behind” as a philosophy. They aren’t willing to segregate the troublemakers from the general population. I think the trick isn’t to pull the best and brightest out of these school and give them a good education, the trick is to pull the worst kids out of these schools so that everyone else can have a good education.
There is nothing wrong with a program that (ina nonpreferential or discriminatory manner) ends up putting some money in the hands of religious organizations.
Religious institutions have a long history of being involved in teaching. They have a long history of being involved in all sort of social welfare programs. If the worst thing that happened from school vouchers was the catholic schools getting some government money to teach some kids that couldn’t pay the tuition, I’d be all for it. unfortunately that is not the only concern.
I think the problem is that voucher programs tend to skim the cream rather than the dross. Get rid of the troublemakers and I bet schools do much better. Sure we end up giving up on some kids but we have to do the most good with what we have.
Judging from the voucher program here in DC, that would not work. Schools simply couldn’t afford to provide that many scholarships and the vouchers would end up simply being a subsidy for middle class families to send their kids to private school rather than their subpar neighborhood school while doing very little for the kids attending failing schools (and perhaps increasing the number of failing public schools by leeching funding from those syubpar schools).
There is a huge difference between a voucher program and charter schools in my opinion.
I think Jimmy Carter was the last President to send his kids to public school in DC.
Yeah, but we’re supposed to be better than them.
Your argument is buttressed by the fact that a lot of these schools are non-profit. The problem is that vouchers systems are mostly fatally flawed in carrying out that objective.
For example in the Indiana program, the voucher is available to a family of 4 with an annual income below ~65K which for Indiana is probably upper middle class or anyone who goes to a failing school (and a couple of tother ways to qualify). The voucher is for $4500. This is enough to cover K-8 at a school with a religious affiliation, it doesn’t even cover half of what it takes to go to most non-religiously affiliated schools K-8. High schools are significantly higher in both cases.
I don’t know how many elementary and middle schools are “failing” but its clear that this voucher will only cover k-8 at a religious school. It doesn’t do much to help kids at failing high schools go to private school when it only covers about 1/3to 1/2 of the tuition.
a Charter school system seems better suited to achieve that goal
Actually, let’s imagine Bob again. If he remains in the school, he will muddle through and make it. If we shut his school down as a failing school and give him only crappy for-profit gimmick schools that will gin up good test scores using all sorts of dishonest trickery, he’ll get a terrible education. What should we do then, big guy?
Of course you’ll say that we shouldn’t put him in crappy for-profit gimmick schools, that I’ve excluded the choice you’d like to make.
Well, exactly. Which is what you’ve done for us. To be entirely clear, I’m not calling for the status quo. I’m calling for a major policy shift that transforms the United State into a modern nation with a modern social safety net, such that schools aren’t filled with children who experience, for example, food insecurity.
If you’re unwilling to do that, you’re willing to condemn Bob’s friend Teresa to a terrible education, as all the kids with even slightly involved parents abandon her public school.
One quick note about charter schools: at least here in NC, they aren’t required to provide the same services as public schools (such as a cafeteria lunch program, transportation to and from school, and a complete range of EC services). But they get a portion of funding as if they did: a portion of our district’s bussing funds go to charter schools, since they just get per-pupil funding not broken out by services provided.
The charter schools can’t turn anyone away. But look at what they don’t provide: transportation, food, EC services. Anyone care to guess which socioeconomic class most needs those services? Anyone care to guess which kids get excluded from charter schools that don’t provide these services?
Now does anyone care to guess which socioeconomic class tends to perform worse on tests?
It’s no wonder charter schools score higher on tests, sometimes, than local schools. The wonder is that they can’t manage to do it all the time.
I think you don’t understand it because you are focusing on the wrong problem.
For profit is fixing the perceived cost of education being too high, not the education itself.
The thinking goes that if it was private and for-profit, it would squeeze out any unnecessary fiscal waste. That may be the case, but private firms that are paid primarily by the government never have the risk of sinking like the titanic that true private sector businesses do. After all, what’s worse? Shoveling some more money into the private school to keep it afloat or let the school close and have 1,000 angry families pounding on your door about their kids not being in school? It’s why so many private businesses try to get on the government dime.
Bricker, as usual your legal summation is brilliant and on-point … but your grasp of the ‘people factor “ seems lacking to me. The point isn’t whether or not these politicos can do anything. Clearly if their voucher program funds a Christian School, a Muslim school must also be funded. But what is interesting is their reaction- that they were so completely dumfounded by the idea that any faith but theirs could benefit from such a programs shows exactly where their mindset was in supporting it. Not better education- Christian education.
Next, note that the Muslim school withdrew from the program. Why is that I wonder? Obviously pressure. Political pressure? Threats? It’s all nice to say that your program “will” fund all faiths, but if you use pressure to keep them out, it’s the same thing as not allowing them to apply.
When folks talk about cutting the costs of education, they’re not being realistic.
My school has 24 regular classroom teachers, and 49 support staff.
Before your head explodes, though, here are some of the support staff:
-2 teachers dedicated to our district’s severely autistic population.
-6 specialists (music, PE, art, Spanish, AIG, and a new Science specialist)
-A librarian and a technology facilitator (the latter of whom maintains all our school’s computers, SmartBoards, iPads, and other technology)
-15 assistants, including one in every K-2 classroom and 2 in each autistic classroom.
-A principal, an assistant principal, a secretary, and a database manager (who also works as a backup secretary during busy times).
-3 custodians, 4 cafeteria workers
-2 Exceptional Children specialists who do inclusion and pull-out lessons for students with severe learning disabilities.
-Various reading and math tutors, guidance counselor, social worker, etc.
If this were a private school, sure, we could cut a lot: no autism classroom, no social worker, no cafeteria workers, no Exceptional Children specialists. By cutting these positions, we’d make ourselves less attractive to families in poverty. At that point, we could cut even more of the services that we need to provide to impoverished students.
We should call that step two because it brings us to:
- Profit!
Again: public schools accept, and work on behalf of, all students. As we should. Any model that doesn’t do that might be okay for those whom it serves, but it is by no means a replacement for what we have.
So you’re saying we should close all private schools? I guess I can get behind that plan, though I feel very sorry for the students who have to try to learn during the transition. I mean, I can see how it would drive a significant improvement in the quality of public education, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t happen immediately.
No, I don’t recall saying any such thing.
You may have absolute faith in that conclusion, but I don’t. As a teacher myself, I know that classroom environment and peer pressure have a large effect on kids; copious research supports this conclusion. Place Bob in a failing public school, surrounded by future drop-outs who do drugs, turn violent, and are utterly uninterested in studies or going to college, and Bob will probably shift towards being like those others. Place Bob in a decent private school, surrounded by students who will give him positive peer pressure towards being a better student, and he’ll probably become a better student. What I don’t understand is why anyone wouldn’t want to give Bob the second option when we can do so.
Well yes, that’s what I’d say.
Okay, let me know when the Democratic Party puts that proposal on the table. At the moment, it seems that the only options on the table are keeping the status quo, or the options that the Democrats always oppose: vouchers, charter schools, merit pay.
Place Bob in a decent school (And there are decent public schools) and he’ll do better. It doesn’t have to be private.
If vouchers are to work, they must be used equally for both public and private schools. If your school is failing and there’s a private school down the road and a public school down the road in the opposite direction, there should be no reason you can’t patronize the better public school, too.
Why would Bob, under a voucher program, be able to attend a private school? His family is still poor, yes? They still can’t afford the additional cost. So what you’re really talking about doing is taking everyone out of Bob’s school except the other poor kids. I imagine they’ll still be the ones who ‘do drugs, turn violent, and are utterly uninterested in studies’ - after all, they’re the ones whose families can’t afford tutoring, extracurricular activities, or even to take time out of their day to help with homework. And since you’ve taken away a significant part of their funding (without significantly reducing overhead costs), Bob’s school is trying to do this with less money per student. I’m sure that’ll work out great for him.
I suppose you might suggest that there would be a private school that cost no more than the voucher provides, and that Bob could go there. Presumably this institution is run as a charity, since it, too, would be stuck with all the poor students in it’s area, with the smallest amount of funding.
I don’t have faith in that. I was mocking your faith in your hypothetical.
Your proposal, to be perfectly clear, is absolutely terrible in pretty much the same way that the Democratic proposal is terrible: it accepts that many children will fall through the cracks. The Democratic proposal lets more kids fall less distance through the cracks, by keeping more kids in poverty in struggling schools. Your proposal lets fewer kids fall a greater distance through the cracks, by allowing a few kids to escape to the detriment of the kids who are left behind.
I reject your Hobson’s choice, because there’s a third way. Your trivialization of the idea of addressing the root causes of poor education suggests that you’re not serious about improving education. Perhaps you’ve got another motive–e.g., an ideological dislike of the public sector–or perhaps you haven’t thought carefully about the issue. But until you’re willing to address the real issue, your thoughts on the subject aren’t very meaningful.