4 ms·

The author seems to be saying that the reason charter schools are successful is because of self-selection, and that is also why public schools are worse, due to

by bsuvc 3y ago

The author seems to be saying that the reason charter schools are successful is because of self-selection, and that is also why public schools are worse, due to the inverse of self-selection. While there is certainly self-selection occurring here, it would be a mistake for policy makers to dismiss the problems with public schools as just being due to that. They should introspect instead of seeking excuses.

monero-xmr 3y ago
Also it’s totally fine for the rich to self-select among many private schools. Apparently it’s only a problem when poor people similarly have choices. Why is having competition among public schools, with parents having a choice as to which to send them, so bad? It doesn’t make any sense.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  The professional/managerial class can’t stand being responsible for their policy failures — which become apparent when people have options.
- cardamomo 3y ago
  The author is suggesting that the self-selection effect is a problem for this and similar studies, because they potentially mask the effect they the learning environment has. In fact, the author sounds quite complimentary, calling the program being studied "an impressive, even inspiring initiative to improve the lives of poor inner-city children through charter schools and community programs." This piece is calling for randomized trials, as opposed to observational studies.
  - fmajid 3y ago
    A randomized trial would probably violate all manner of ethics rules, and be vociferously opposed by parents, at least those who care about their kids' education, and thus we'd fall back to the same self-selection problem the author highlights.
    - collinmcnulty 3y ago
      Not necessarily. I went to a charter middle school that received more qualified applications than they had seats, so they had a lottery every year. You could easily compare students who won the lottery to those who did not.
- RHSeeger 3y ago
  > Also it’s totally fine for the rich to self-select among many private schools. Apparently it’s only a problem when poor people similarly have choices. That is, I believe, misrepresenting the problem. Rather, it's more like > It's fine for the small subset to self-select among many private schools. Apparently it’s only a problem when the masses similarly have choices. And that makes sense, because 0.5% of people/funding/etc being taken out of schools isn't a big deal... but 20% starts to make a big impact.
  - busterarm 3y ago
    > And that makes sense, because 0.5% of people/funding/etc being taken out of schools isn't a big deal... but 20% starts to make a big impact. Public schools in NYC spend yearly twice per child what the cost is for the average private school in the city. ($38k vs $19k). And on the private school side of the equation that average is skewed upwards by a minority of very expensive ($60k/yr) schools. If you're spending more money for worse results, we SHOULD divert funding to better-performing alternatives.
    - Hermitian909 3y ago
      > If you're spending more money for worse results, we SHOULD divert funding to better-performing alternatives. The data doesn't really say this. Two things to know about education: - A large percentage of school outcomes are dictated by home life. Interviewing parents or just picking from the population of people who can afford $20k a year allows you to pick from a higher achieving cohort. - Private schools don't have to provide the same level of services to children who require additional care. This is a significant cost saving. Most schools I've worked at had multiple staff dedicated to the care of just a handful of children.
      - kurthr 3y ago
        Exactly, public schools pay about 3x cost ($30k/yr vs $10k) price for each of the (learning and other) disabled kids which private schools and charters completely avoid. It's just cost shifting and the only solution would be to share costs, which (like insurance) reduces profits so they'll fight tooth&nail.

by bsuvc 3y ago

monero-xmr 3y ago

Also it’s totally fine for the rich to self-select among many private schools. Apparently it’s only a problem when poor people similarly have choices. Why is having competition among public schools, with parents having a choice as to which to send them, so bad? It doesn’t make any sense.

zmgsabst 3y ago
The professional/managerial class can’t stand being responsible for their policy failures — which become apparent when people have options.
cardamomo 3y ago
The author is suggesting that the self-selection effect is a problem for this and similar studies, because they potentially mask the effect they the learning environment has. In fact, the author sounds quite complimentary, calling the program being studied "an impressive, even inspiring initiative to improve the lives of poor inner-city children through charter schools and community programs." This piece is calling for randomized trials, as opposed to observational studies.
- fmajid 3y ago
  A randomized trial would probably violate all manner of ethics rules, and be vociferously opposed by parents, at least those who care about their kids' education, and thus we'd fall back to the same self-selection problem the author highlights.
  - collinmcnulty 3y ago
    Not necessarily. I went to a charter middle school that received more qualified applications than they had seats, so they had a lottery every year. You could easily compare students who won the lottery to those who did not.
RHSeeger 3y ago
> Also it’s totally fine for the rich to self-select among many private schools. Apparently it’s only a problem when poor people similarly have choices. That is, I believe, misrepresenting the problem. Rather, it's more like > It's fine for the small subset to self-select among many private schools. Apparently it’s only a problem when the masses similarly have choices. And that makes sense, because 0.5% of people/funding/etc being taken out of schools isn't a big deal... but 20% starts to make a big impact.
- busterarm 3y ago
  > And that makes sense, because 0.5% of people/funding/etc being taken out of schools isn't a big deal... but 20% starts to make a big impact. Public schools in NYC spend yearly twice per child what the cost is for the average private school in the city. ($38k vs $19k). And on the private school side of the equation that average is skewed upwards by a minority of very expensive ($60k/yr) schools. If you're spending more money for worse results, we SHOULD divert funding to better-performing alternatives.
  - Hermitian909 3y ago
    > If you're spending more money for worse results, we SHOULD divert funding to better-performing alternatives. The data doesn't really say this. Two things to know about education: - A large percentage of school outcomes are dictated by home life. Interviewing parents or just picking from the population of people who can afford $20k a year allows you to pick from a higher achieving cohort. - Private schools don't have to provide the same level of services to children who require additional care. This is a significant cost saving. Most schools I've worked at had multiple staff dedicated to the care of just a handful of children.
    - kurthr 3y ago
      Exactly, public schools pay about 3x cost ($30k/yr vs $10k) price for each of the (learning and other) disabled kids which private schools and charters completely avoid. It's just cost shifting and the only solution would be to share costs, which (like insurance) reduces profits so they'll fight tooth&nail.