If you were designing the best way to educate the kids of the nation would it be in a government run monopoly dominated by an enormously powerful and self-serving union?
Like a lot of people on both sides of the political fence, I've become discouraged with the venality, partisanship and general sloppiness of the news media. They don't cover all the news I want or need to know about and they certainly don't cover most issues in depth or from more than one myopic perspective. Whether these failures are because of a political agenda or simple incompetence doesn't matter all that much. They just aren't doing their jobs very well.…
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
Sonny, I think we do care about the schools. And caring about them is doubly important because of parents like the one you describe. They're not going to make the effort to improve things for their kid or educate them at home or find an alternative for them, so the system needs to make better quality education available more easily by whatever means necessary.
And SoL, vouchers are only part of the solution. A lot of what Stossel featured wasn't actually voucher education, but rather charter schools of one kind or another. Ben Chavis's school in Oakland and the alternative school he looked at in Washington DC were both charter schools where they're under the umbrella of the public school system but essentially autonomous and open to students from anywhere.
Dave
27 - Dave Nalle
First as to the voucher issue. I kinda feel that when the religious institutions pay taxes, I'd consider a voucher system.
As I've said before I think churches should pay taxes on any income above the level needed to fund operations, pay salaries and provide for any charities they run, whether or not there are vouchers involved.
I realize not all private schools are religious, but most are where I live, and I'm not sure of the national numbers.
There's also an issue with defining what is and is not a religious school. There are lots of schools which aren't associated with a church which have chapel once a week or some sort of non-sectarian religious activity in the school.
I don't have all the usual trepidation with respect to public monies "supporting" religious teaching. I figure if it's accross the board there's no endorsment of a particular faith. If someone would disagree I'd question does the government endorse "non-faith" or atheism in public schools
The government could just ignore the philosophy of the schools. The way Stossel presented it, the money was just attached to the student. Each student was worth X dollars and that money would go with him wherever he went to school. That's the way it ought to be looked at.
? I would however not want a reduction in public school funds except to the extent that it reflects enrollment and reform. I'll certainly agree that much of public school education is top heavy. Not enough gets to the student in any meaningful way.
As I've shown before, if you do this through a tax credit as was proposed in South Carolina, the result is that the voucher ends up being far less than each school actually gets to spend on the student - usually about half. And the rest of the money stays with the public school. So typically a kid would get a $5000 voucher and close to $5000 would stay with the public school, so the kids in public school would actually get MORE money per student for each kid who left to go to a charter or private school. It's a win-win situation.
This brings me to a question I have for you. Why are you so quick to disregard and forget our own public school experience? Granted it was a somewhat simpler time but I'd guess we were much happier with the results then as there wasn't nearly the amount of hand wringing as today and there was no more competition then than now.
Ah, you see. I never went to public school. The closest I came was a really awful kind of quasi-public school run by the international community in Moscow. My primary experience with the public schools is recent from when I sent my eldest daughter to public school for a number of years. The experience was quite negative. However, from what I do understand the public schools were a hell of a lot better when I was a kid than they are now. The NEA was also a lot weaker then than it is now.
BTW I agree with Shark. I don't much care for Stossel.
I don't think anyone likes Stossel's personality much, but he does raise important issues.
Dave
28 - chanceluckly
there's a reference to the amount spent on public education doubling in the last 30 years. Is that in inflation adjusted dollars?
Also what's the data for the results being worse?
dropout and graduation rates can be highly misleading since districts frequently manipulate both.
Are there clear indicators that students perform less well in reading, math, writing, etc?
I've seen a lot of anecdotal information. I've also looked at some of the data for performance of students in charter schools and in cities with "choice" systems. There was one study by Cecelia Rouse in Milwaukee around ten years ago that found that school choice kids did mildly better in math, but I haven't seen any dramatic evidence that alternatives to public schools actually do better once you compare like populations.
I'm reasonably familiar with the charter school in Oakland that's gotten so much attention lately. The figure cited favorably was that 32 percent of eighth graders at the school were being found proficient on the state's standardized test in math. This is much better than Oakland City Schools as a whole, but it's hardly an acceptable level as an end point. In other words, I'd like to see more of a track record over time.
I remember many people got very excited about Marva Collins's school in Chicago. Twenty years later, they've had little success replicating it and I'm not sure anyone's tracked the kids from that school to see what happened to them.
I"m not defending the performance of public schools, I do think a lot of people think the answers are easier and more abvious than they really are.
29 - Dave Nalle
there's a reference to the amount spent on public education doubling in the last 30 years. Is that in inflation adjusted dollars?
From what I've seen that's with adjustments for inflation. Wouldn't be a fair comparison at all otherwise.
Also what's the data for the results being worse?
dropout and graduation rates can be highly misleading since districts frequently manipulate both.
Since they manipulate them in their favor then if they're worse than in the past, they are likely to really be even worse than we're being told, right?
Are there clear indicators that students perform less well in reading, math, writing, etc?
We've got standardized test scores, which have steadily been going down and in fact the scoring system for the SAT has had to be adjusted because the upper range of scores became meaningless as so few people were getting them. There are also comparisons with other countries which clearly show our students underperforming. The problem seems to be worst in social studies, language arts and science. Math might not be as much of a problem as other areas.
There's a good look at the data at this link.
I've seen a lot of anecdotal information. I've also looked at some of the data for performance of students in charter schools and in cities with "choice" systems. There was one study by Cecelia Rouse in Milwaukee around ten years ago that found that school choice kids did mildly better in math, but I haven't seen any dramatic evidence that alternatives to public schools actually do better once you compare like populations.
Take a look at the study by the woman from Harvard cited and linked in the article. It's data rich and very convincing at least on the issue that competition raises the level of quality of ALL schools in an area, which I think is the real point.
Dave
30 - chancelucky
I looked over the Hoxby article. There are a couple tricky things in it. One her charts seem to be based on performance during the school year 1999-2000. It's very dangerous to look at school performance across a single school year when the measure is a single high stakes test. The best example is the Chicago Public Schools under Paul Valas which showed gains for 3 years and then a sudden collapse. I think they call it the "measurement effect". It's more or less a fact of life in education studies that once something is tracked, there's about a 3 year cycle of apparent objective improvement. In fact, the only real gain is that the people responsible for the data have been more diligent about it.
at worst, they manipulate who takes the tests and openly cheat on them.
in between, there's a tendency to work very hard with those students in a certain performance band to get them over the hump. As in a great deal of effort is expended to literally teach to the test and concentrate on students who failed to show proficiency by 5-10 points in the prior test.
The result is that the school looks much better in terms of its performance on the test, but actually a surprisingly small number of kids made any significant progress and more long term looks at performance even for those who supposedly now became proficient aren't as optimistic. This happened when they use the NAEP for instance instead of the Tas, the alleged gains in Texas didn't seem nearly as positive or permanent.
Economists, like Hoxby, ( I don't know her) who have looked at schools tend to take relatively narrow data slices at least because they work well for statistical analysis in lieu of examining the effect of actual curricular and pedagogical changes (admittedly that's hard to do)
As it happens, I was in Milwaukee a couple times in 1999-2000 looking at high poverty schools. If I remember correctly, it was an interesting year politically in that there was a philsophical struggle going on with the school board over the precise system of assessment to implement (isn't there always). One of the results in this post-Howard Fuller era (Fuller was the superintendent who embraced school choice) was that there was some pressure on schools to "look" better.
It was my distinct impression that there were no substantial changes in the Milwaukee Public Schools at that time, particularly at the high school level other than the fact that they were tracking tests and test takers more diligently.
I had occasion to visit a couple alternative schools as well (as in charters) and was not especially impressed.
One of the big problems is that studies of effectiveness have a tendency to look at percentage improvements in the number of kids demonstrating proficiency on a single standardized test. While this sounds objective enough, it's full of pitfalls in practice. The same studies frequently fail to look at absolute performance on the tests. For example, the much ballyhooed success of the Oakland Native American Charter School is over what's still an unacceptable percentage of kids showing proficiency.
Perhaps the most interesting fact of all is that in the year 2002, (2 years after Hoxby's data slice) the percentage of students meeting proficiency in Milwaukee schools started to decline.
article on Milwaukee 2002
31 - Dave Nalle
Perhaps the most interesting fact of all is that in the year 2002, (2 years after Hoxby's data slice) the percentage of students meeting proficiency in Milwaukee schools started to decline.
So you're basically saying that the public schools improved under the pressure of competition combined with assessment of their performance relative to competing alternative schools, and that they slacked off when they weren't under as much scrutiny. Sounds logical to me. The answer then would be to make sure there's constant ongoing assessment as well as penalties for poor performance and rewards for good performance - directly on both teachers and administrators. Not that the NEA would ever allow such a thing.
None of this, of course, argues against the basic desirability of having choice and competition in schools. Just freeing parents to move their kids to a different school is bound to have a positive effect on both the kids and the system.
Dave
32 - chancelucky
I believe the level of "competition" remained the same in Milwaukee through 2002.
I was saying that the "measurement" effect with standardized school testing has about a 3 year run then scores tend to drop. If you look at a narrow information slice as Hoxby did, it's possible to miss the fact that "measurement" effect gains are illusory.
It's not a matter of the NEA allowing it. NCLB does provide the sort of system you're talking about. I'm honestly not certain that NCLB has been particularly successful.
One thing that economist looking at education often miss is the fact that educational gains aren't necessarily that easy to measure objectively. There are many levels at which one can understand and master a topic. The Stanford 9 is pretty good at some of them, but not all and if you get into the technical elements of proficient scores vs. non-proficient scores, kids on the borderline often aren't moving forward just because they cross the "fence" on the test.
Terranova, the instrument, used in Milwaukee has a little bit broader band of what it tries to "assess", but it also raises issues.
In any case, I was suggesting that public schools may not have improved at all. Very few of the inputs changed.
33 - Dave Nalle
To go back to what Chavous said in the Stossel report. If the public schools aren't doing their job, offer an alternative and when people take it shut down the schools they're fleeing. That's the sensible way to deal with failure.
Dave
34 - chancelucky
That's only true if the alternative or cure is demonstrably better as an option. Charter schools and private schools have a mixed record according to any "neutral" study that I'm aware of. Hoxby, for instance, is a fellow at the Hoover Institute. Iirc, the most favorable studies of Charters came from the Bradley foundation. If you look at some of the studies of charters from the other side of the spectrum like Martin Carnoy's look at Peruvian schools where they both deunionized and implemented a "choice" system, the picture's not very rosy.
Chavous's notion may make sense in the business world, but where are kids supposed to go to school in the meantime? When I looked at charters in Minnesota, one of the big issues was that yes there was more variety and possibly more innovation with the charters, but there was also much greater volatility. For every charter that performed well with its target population (that by the way is a very tricky policy matter of its own), there were at least two where there were issues of outright fraud, incompetence, or even abusive behavior (these things happen in public schools as well, but the charters sometimes closed in the middle of the school year leaving families stranded)
there are many significant issues with a "privatized" system.
what do you do about areas where no one wants to create a school
what about the kids who schools don't want to take? I've seen charters and privates that take severely disabled students, but not many. One of the popular charters in most states is a mandatory parent participation school. They work very well, but what happens to the kids who have parents who don't, won't, or can't participate?
The market model doesn't work everywhere and in all endeavours. I've been around enough schools to know that "quality" is a highly subjective notion in education. Take a private school like St. Alban's. It can produce competent intelligent people like Al Gore and it can produce god knows what. And that's within a couple miles of Congress and the National Cathedral. Is it a good school because one went there or a bad one because it miseducated some of its other alumni? :}
35 - Dave Nalle
That's only true if the alternative or cure is demonstrably better as an option. Charter schools and private schools have a mixed record according to any "neutral" study that I'm aware of. Hoxby, for instance, is a fellow at the Hoover Institute. Iirc, the most favorable studies of Charters came from the Bradley foundation. If you look at some of the studies of charters from the other side of the spectrum like Martin Carnoy's look at Peruvian schools where they both deunionized and implemented a "choice" system, the picture's not very rosy.
I hardly think you can compare the Peruvian school system with the US system. The comparison Stossel makes to Belgium seems much more appropriate, and that system has been a remarkable success with a diversity of choices including private, parochial, charter and public schools. It's the most similar system to what we would have here in the US if we implemented choice everywhere.
Chavous's notion may make sense in the business world, but where are kids supposed to go to school in the meantime?
Maybe there will come a time when the primary function of the school district is to provide free transportation to available schools. Wouldn't that be a beautiful thing to see.
When I looked at charters in Minnesota, one of the big issues was that yes there was more variety and possibly more innovation with the charters, but there was also much greater volatility. For every charter that performed well with its target population (that by the way is a very tricky policy matter of its own), there were at least two where there were issues of outright fraud, incompetence, or even abusive behavior (these things happen in public schools as well, but the charters sometimes closed in the middle of the school year leaving families stranded)
there are many significant issues with a "privatized" system.
There were problems with the charter system here in Texas when it first started out, especially with widespread fraud and incompetence. Some changes in oversight were implemented and the charter schools were given greater functional independence and it seems to have worked wonders. There are a number of very good ones in our area now.
what do you do about areas where no one wants to create a school
If there are students there is likely to be a school. And a system with choice doesn't necessarily rule out public schools as one of the choices.
what about the kids who schools don't want to take? I've seen charters and privates that take severely disabled students, but not many. One of the popular charters in most states is a mandatory parent participation school. They work very well, but what happens to the kids who have parents who don't, won't, or can't participate?
Actually, from what I've seen charters specifically designed for troubled and disabled kids are among the most popular and most successful. For one thing you get more money if you take disabled kids, That's a big incentive to start them.
The market model doesn't work everywhere and in all endeavours. I've been around enough schools to know that "quality" is a highly subjective notion in education. Take a private school like St. Alban's. It can produce competent intelligent people like Al Gore and it can produce god knows what.
Hell, it produced me, so it can't be right all the time.
And that's within a couple miles of Congress and the National Cathedral. Is it a good school because one went there or a bad one because it miseducated some of its other alumni? :}
Whether it's a good or a bad school should be determined by things like college placement and test scores. When I graduated half of my class were national merit scholar semi-finalists or higher, and every single graduate went to college. Those are objective measures of goodness. They're the things that parents want to see when they go looking for a school.
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS is a very good public school in the DC area. It has a student body very similar to St. Albans, and draws students exclusively from one of the wealthiest areas in the nation. But despite that their college placements and test scores are significantly lower than St. Albans. Still fantastic compared to other schools around the nation.
You can also compare St. Albans with other private schools in the area to see how it ranks. It beats them all out in the objective criteria, with the possible exception of Sidwell Friends (which is where I'd send my kids if I still lived in DC).
The point being that there are some obvious ways to compare schools. If you public HS is only sending 10% of its graduates to college and they have average SATs of 900 combined, there's a serious problem. If a charter or private school can't beat numbers like that then it will not attract students. But I bet that it can with ease.
The market DOES work, and there's a reason why we've seen an absolute explosion in private schools in the last 20 years. The economy is strong enough to support more of them, and there's a burning desire to get out of the public system because it just doesn't work most of the time.
Dave
36 - Drew
I thought the report did a number of things well, and it's important to give it credit for those things. It was certainly effective at provoking a response and highlighting the education as a major concern. It made a strong case for being able to choose where your child goes to school without facing economic penalties given the current failings of the school system.
However, I also have a couple of problems with the program. First, as Dave mentioned in his article, the choice of Belgium as a unit of comparison seems to have been due to Belgium's voucher system. Of course, there's nothing wrong with making this comparison, but creating a methodology predicated on the argument one wishes to advance is problematic. There are other countries that arguably have more in common with the U.S. (in terms of history, culture, language, geography) and scored higher than Belgium in the international tests cited, i.e. Canada / Australia, that would have made for a better comparison.
I also think “Stupid in America” failed to explore alternative reasons for and solutions to the education crisis (at all, or in enough depth), i.e. curriculum, the media, the social, cultural and economic structures of American society, etc.. Of course, giving an in-depth account of education in American in 45 minutes in next to impossible, and again I appreciate the open acknowledgment in the above article that the program was relatively straightforward and focused in terms of its agenda.
One of my big complaints about discourses on education is that they so often fail to seriously ask what is the purpose of education? Often it is assumed that education should raise children to be competitive workers in the global market, just as it is assumed that the answer to educational problems is the application of free market principles. I am not trying to argue here that this is not a legitimate goal to education. However, surely education should also aim at creating a critical and empowered citizenry. Never moving outside of and challenging free-market and consumerist culture, and its effect on structuring American discourse is antithetical to this notion of a critical citizenry. This doesn't mean opposing free market capitalism and its effect on education, but it does mean questioning it to a much larger extent then has been the norm (as Stupid in America demonstrates).
(Sorry, I have not read all of the previous comments, or even the complete article above, although I did watch the 20/20 program not too long ago)