Skip to main content

View Diary: The Bush Administration Works Through the Stages of Grief (126 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm just looking at the statistics here (0+ / 0-)

    TeacherKen writes:

    What it shows is that when you control for things like family income, there is no significant difference in performance of public and private schools.

    Yes, that's true for the whole population of students.  But for any individual student, the reality is different.  Basically, the stats show that a random public school will be "better" than a random private school a little more than half the time.

    Parents who live in neighborhoods where the local public school is better will stay with the public school.  Parents who live where the local private school is better will switch to the better school.

    By adding vouchers, we put more money into the system, that can be used at more schools for more choices.

    •  we don't add vouchers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmhowell, StrayCat

      although that is the proposal to get the nose of the camel under the tents.  No meaningful voucher works as an add-on.   If you have money for education that you give to vouchers it is money that you could otherwise have given to public schools that you are not giving.

      Original Bush education proposal was to take part of Title I funds and use that for vouchers -- couldn't get it through Congress.

      Oh, and your reasoning is flawed.  Even if a parent wanted to go to the "better" private school, there is no guarantee that the school would take the child, because there is no requirement for a non-public school to take any child.

      There are other flaws of reasoning in your comment, but that's all i ahve time for.

      Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

      by teacherken on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 01:47:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We can add vouchers. We can do a lot of things. (0+ / 0-)

        No meaningful voucher works as an add-on.  

        That is why we must propose one that does work.

        Even if a parent wanted to go to the "better" private school, there is no guarantee that the school would take the child, because there is no requirement for a non-public school to take any child.

        We could put anti-cherrypick constraints on the voucher, couldn't we?  But even if we didn't, some kids would get accepted into the private school.  Saving some kids is better than saving none.

        Also, if the snooty private school won't take your kid then you (or church groups, or local colleges, or Wicca Circles) can start their own school.  You can use government money to do it.  This is a good thing.

        •  Of course... (0+ / 0-)

          We could require that private schools accepting vouchers not cherry pick.  Teacherken continues to pretend that voucher proposals, like the Swedish system, easily accomodate such rules.  

          Most proposal suggest that a lottery be used to select students in instances where the number of applicants exceeds the number of open spaces.  If private schools don't wish to play be these rules, they could do so, but they would not be eligible for voucher funding.  

          The grass is greener where it's watered.

          by decon on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:19:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  There is a legitimate case ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... to be made for preventing the add-ons or topping up of vouchers.  The crux of the case is whether or not the level of funding for the basic voucher is, and will remain, sufficient to provide a quality education for those who can't top it off.  Liberals are right to be suspicous of conservatives on this issue.

        I personally favor weighted vouchers based on family income.  I believe students from low income families, or those with special needs, should receive a voucher worth more money.  It costs more to educate them.  And schools would rather not take them.  The additional money will both compensate schools for taking these students and give them an incentive to do so.  Google "student weighted funding" to learn more.

        Manhattanman makes an excellent point which teacherken chooses to ignore. With add-ons, more money will be going into the system.  And of course this already takes place in the PUBLIC school system via aggressive fundraising by parents in wealthier public school districts.  

        The grass is greener where it's watered.

        by decon on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:35:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Weighted vouchers have another good side (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          decon

          They help us politically.

          The current Republican proposals give small amounts of money to poor people.

          Let's give large amounts to poor people, moderate amounts to middle class people and a token amount to the rich.

          This way, everybody gets something and it will make the measure easier to pass.

          •  Yep. (0+ / 0-)

            It's a no brainer.  Students win. Parents win.  Good teachers win.  Good administrators win.  

            The grass is greener where it's watered.

            by decon on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 07:02:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site