6 ms·

* Read the executive summary. Half of the subgroups did not have improved performance. Math performance did not improve. Reading scores did improve, but this sp

* Read the executive summary. Half of the subgroups did not have improved performance. Math performance did not improve. Reading scores did improve, but this specific improvement cannot be meaningfully be attributed to the public vs. private nature of the schools. And, the study does attempt to figure out if the reading improvements could be replicated within the public school system by copying the reading programs used in the private schools. * In the third year, over 83% of the participating students were attending schools where they were forced to endure continuous daily religious indoctrination. This is completely unethical. * No attempt was made to measure the performance of students that attended a school designed for religious indoctrination against the students who attended a school designed expressly for education. * According to the study, many parents (19%) turned down the vouchers they received after their students were accepted to public charter schools. It seems like parents are showing a strong preference for charter schools over private schools. IMO, this warrants further investigation into the funding of public charter schools instead of public funding of private education. * According to the study, many parents of special needs students were not able to use their vouchers because the private schools were not able to provide the necessary services. The public schools are bearing nearly all of the costs of caring for special needs students whereas private schools are mostly punting on the issue. Similarly, if you get kicked out of a public or private school for behavioral or criminal reasons then you will be sent to a public alternative high school. Cost comparisons need to be made using comparable student populations. * All measurements in this study suffer heavily from selection bias. Much of the data comes from voluntary surveys that were filled out by parents. It was basically a competition between political groups to convince the most parents on their side to return the surveys. Parents and students who were not interested in their students' education and/or the political ramifications of the survey are likely severely under-represented. It is silly to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of private schools vs. the effectiveness of public schools by Cato's summary or my summary of the study. A summary of a summary of a study can be easily spun however the writer wants to spin it. AFAICT, the study report itself has very little actionable information in it; at best, it points out areas that need more study before any conclusions can be drawn.

grandalf 18y ago
Perhaps but your conclusions are equally silly (and not based on logic). Voucher programs are very new and rare. Why would you expect them to function at the same level as established (and well funded) public schools after a very short time. For comparison, imagine if FedEx were allowed to deliver residential mail -- would you expect 100% coverage of every US address overnight? Of course not. The ramp-up will take time, and with voucher money entrepreneurs will invent better schools and existing schools will be able to ramp up due to network effects long enjoyed by the public monopoly. Also, you are right that parochial schools enjoyed a bump in enrolment that they may not have deserved, but they benefit from having had (for a long time) other sources of funding, namely donations. Also, I think you exaggerate the "indoctrination" quite a bit. Are public school students not indoctrinated that FDR and Henry Kissinger were great men? I'm not sure why you have to draw the line and say that only indoctrination about the supernatural is distasteful!
- briansmith 18y ago
  Cato's article claimed that this study showed that private schools were clearly better at educating students than private schools. My point about performance was to show that the study itself says that isn't the case, based on the executive summary of the study itself. How was that silly or illogical? My point regarding special ed and alternative schools is that these programs make averge-cost-per-student and average-performance-per-student metrics incomparable between public and private schools. The statements are derived directly from the study report. How is that silly or illogical? I didn't say that only indoctrination about the supernatural is distasteful. Indoctrination--religious or otherwise--is unethical. You bring up FDR and Henry Hissinger as examples of public school indoctrination, but there are many public schools (like mine) that presented those men in an objective manner. There is no doubt that some teachers in some public schools may engadge in some kinds of (often religious, nationalistic, or otherwise political) indoctrination. However, it is something that can be identified and corrected within the public school program without changing any fundamental aspect of the public education system. The only way to rid religious schools of the indoctrination--for which they were created and which is one of their main selling points--is to close them or transfer them from religious organizations to secular organizations (which is something I fully support).

grandalf 18y ago

Perhaps but your conclusions are equally silly (and not based on logic). Voucher programs are very new and rare. Why would you expect them to function at the same level as established (and well funded) public schools after a very short time. For comparison, imagine if FedEx were allowed to deliver residential mail -- would you expect 100% coverage of every US address overnight? Of course not. The ramp-up will take time, and with voucher money entrepreneurs will invent better schools and existing schools will be able to ramp up due to network effects long enjoyed by the public monopoly. Also, you are right that parochial schools enjoyed a bump in enrolment that they may not have deserved, but they benefit from having had (for a long time) other sources of funding, namely donations. Also, I think you exaggerate the "indoctrination" quite a bit. Are public school students not indoctrinated that FDR and Henry Kissinger were great men? I'm not sure why you have to draw the line and say that only indoctrination about the supernatural is distasteful!

briansmith 18y ago
Cato's article claimed that this study showed that private schools were clearly better at educating students than private schools. My point about performance was to show that the study itself says that isn't the case, based on the executive summary of the study itself. How was that silly or illogical? My point regarding special ed and alternative schools is that these programs make averge-cost-per-student and average-performance-per-student metrics incomparable between public and private schools. The statements are derived directly from the study report. How is that silly or illogical? I didn't say that only indoctrination about the supernatural is distasteful. Indoctrination--religious or otherwise--is unethical. You bring up FDR and Henry Hissinger as examples of public school indoctrination, but there are many public schools (like mine) that presented those men in an objective manner. There is no doubt that some teachers in some public schools may engadge in some kinds of (often religious, nationalistic, or otherwise political) indoctrination. However, it is something that can be identified and corrected within the public school program without changing any fundamental aspect of the public education system. The only way to rid religious schools of the indoctrination--for which they were created and which is one of their main selling points--is to close them or transfer them from religious organizations to secular organizations (which is something I fully support).