Private schools
Wally Williams
someone tell me what empirical evidence exists that a private
or parochial school education is better than that of a public
school? It's common knowledge, I know, but is there any actual
data to support this "fact," or is it just intuitive?
M. Kilgore
for Einstien. Frankly, though, most of it isn't intuitive at all anymore. It
it was then the voucher supporters, who have been in my part of the world
for over 2 decades, would have made some real progress instead of spinning
their wheels so.
mark
Wally Williams <will...@ainet.com> wrote in message
news:3864085F...@ainet.com...
Richard A. Beldin, Ph.D.
performance of the students in college math courses. The results were
lopsided in favor of private schools. No public school had more than 65%
of their students passing the Algebra and Trig course. There were some
poor private schools too, mostly run by religious groups. There were
some good religious and secular private schools with 90% or more of the
students passing the course in question.
C. Smith
<rabe...@caribe.net> wrote:
But this is not evidence that a private school education is better than
a public school education. The study does not control for the
differences in the two samples. Private school students are, by
defintion, a self selected group. Public school students are, by their
nature, effectively not. Public schools in affluent areas (where
property prices act as a gatekeeper) perform as well as any private
school (who's admissions policy acts as a gatekeeper).
I have yet to see any evidence that a private school provided a better
education merely because it was private.
C. Smith
panther
"C. Smith" <csmith...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Richard A. Beldin, Ph.D. wrote:
>
MK. Discussion deleted (State school versus independent schools; any
evidence for superiority of independent schools?)...
>
> > Yes, I did a study in 1998 that rated high schools on the subsequent
> > performance of the students in college math courses. The results
were
> > lopsided in favor of private schools. No public school had more
than 65%
> > of their students passing the Algebra and Trig course. There were
some
> > poor private schools too, mostly run by religious groups. There were
> > some good religious and secular private schools with 90% or more of
the
> > students passing the course in question.
>
>
> But this is not evidence that a private school education is better
than
> a public school education. The study does not control for the
> differences in the two samples. Private school students are, by
> defintion, a self selected group. Public school students are, by
their
> nature, effectively not. Public schools in affluent areas (where
> property prices act as a gatekeeper) perform as well as any private
> school (who's admissions policy acts as a gatekeeper).
>
> I have yet to see any evidence that a private school provided a better
> education merely because it was private.
>
participants to this thread, and less of the for profit/not for profit
distinction. a) NCES published a chart of school success by type of
school and parents' race. Graduates of independent schools were more
likely to have entered college, to have graduated college, and to have
achieved advanced degrees. The difference in performance is greater for
minorities than for whites. b) NCES publishes NAEP 8th grade math
results for State schools and for independent schools. Independent
schools outperform State schools. c) University of Chicago sociologist
James Coleman studied relative school performance and found a
significant difference between State and parochial schools. d) Chubb
and Moe, in an institutional/statistical study supported by the
Brookings Institution, found that the largest contribution to school
success, after average parent SES, was a composite variable they called
the degree of institutional autonomy. That is, the more people above
the level of principal telling the principal how to do her job, the
worse the school performed. They argue that State operation of schools
invites the bureaucratization of school administration, reducing the
principal's independence, and so, school performance. e) The World
Bank, in a study comparing State schools with independent schools in
several nations, found that independent schools outperformed State
schools, when parent SES was held constant. f) Herman Brustaert, in a
study of student performance in State and independent schools in
Belgium (Belgium subsidizes attendance at independent schools), found
higher performance in independent schools, and a smaller gap between
scores of poor and rich kids in independent schools than in State
schools.
>
MK. Csmith is correct that the problem of self-selection contaminates
conclusions drawn from comparisons of independent and State schools in
the US. This objection is not as large as it first appears, and there
is an obvious way around it. One way around the problem is to compare
performance of entire polties: those which support parents' choices,
and those which do not. Singapore, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Denmark,
Czech Republic, Sweden, and Belgium support a parent's choice of
school, outside State schools. Alaska subsidizes homeschooling, and
counts homeschoolers as enrolled in the State system. Homeschoolers
outperform conventionally schooled children, and Alaska's 90th
percentile score (1996 NAEP 8th grade Numbers and Operations, Algebra
and Functions subtests) is the highest in the US. Too bad we don't have
NAEP baseline data for Alaska from before they instituted the
homeschool subsidy.
>
MK. To suppose that family influences (income, "involvement", etc)
account for the difference between independent schools and State
schools is to suppose that parents who pay $X,000 for independent
schools are systematically deluded. To assert that independent school
students would have done just as well in state schools is to assert
that these successfully concerned parents just threw $x,000 down the
toilet. That tuition could have otherwise been spent on food, travel,
or a Nikon microscope with camera for junior.
>
MK. Lastly, school choice (as in school vouchers) would reduce
systematic abuse. From Hyman and Penroe, Journal of School Psychology:
"Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school
children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the
traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988;
Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990). Extrapolation from these
studies suggests that psychological maltreatment of school children,
especially those who are poor, is fairly widespread in the United
States...."
"...A good percentage of these students develop angry and aggressive
responses as a result. Yet, emotional abuse and its relation to
misbehavior in schools receives little pedagogical, psychological, or
legal attention and is rarely mentioned in textbooks on school
discipline (Pokalo & Hyman, 1993, Sarno, 1992)."
"As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional
maltreatment in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic
status (SES) of the student population (Hyman, 1990)."
>
MK. From Roland Meighan, "Home-based Education Effectiveness Research
and Some of its Implications", Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.
"The issue of social skills. One edition of Home School Researcher,
Volume 8, Number 3, contains two research reports on the issue of
social skills. The first finding of the study by Larry Shyers (1992)
was that home-schooled students received significantly lower problem
behavior scores than schooled children. His next finding was that home-
schooled children are socially well adjusted, but schooled children are
not so well adjusted. Shyers concludes that we are asking the wrong
question when we ask about the social adjustment of home-schooled
children. The real question is why is the social; adjustment of
schooled children of such poor quality?"
>
"The second study, by Thomas Smedley (1992), used different test
instruments but comes to the same conclusion, that home-educated
children are more mature and better socialized than those attending
school." ...p. 277
>
"12. So-called 'school phobia' is actually more likely to be a sign
of mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized
mental health problem"..., p.281
>
"I'm sorry I have so much rage, but you put it in me." --Dylan Klebold
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
>
www.hslda.org (Very useful links, for prospective homeschoolers)
>
www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky comment on
school. Please read this.)
>
The model:
>
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537273125&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
36.1544683525&HIT_CONTEXT=943220636.1544683525&hitnum=271
>
The proposal:
>
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537272956&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
36.1544683525&HIT_CONTEXT=943220636.1544683525&hitnum=270
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
tho...@my-deja.com
will...@ainet.com wrote:
> With all the argument about school vouchers/choice, will
> someone tell me what empirical evidence exists that a private
> or parochial school education is better than that of a public
> school? It's common knowledge, I know, but is there any actual
> data to support this "fact," or is it just intuitive?
>
>
I do not know if these are helpful, but you might start here:
How Different, How Similar? Comparing Key Organizational Qualities of
American Public and Private Secondary Schools: October 1996
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/96322.html
Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ps/index.html
The Regulation of Private Schools in America: A State-by-State Analysis
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/RegPrivSchl/index.html
Statistics About Non-Public Education in the United States
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OIIA/NonPublic/statistics.html
James Powell
Mark H. Shapiro
this is a question that has a definitive answer. The quality of the
education that a student receives depends on many variables including
the quality of the individual teachers, the involvement of the parents,
etc.
In general, however, private schools have the luxury of choosing their
students. Thus, on average their students probably learn more and
perform better on standardized tests. Based on my thirty plus years of
college teaching, I do know that students from private schools (in this
case mostly parochial schools) seem to be better prepared in math and
English than their counterparts from public schools. (This would square
with Dr. Beldin's observations.) But at the same time I have to warn
that my sample is skewed. I teach in a public, comprehensive university,
and we draw our students mostly from lower middle-class families. So, I
am comparing students from a relatively small number of Catholic schools
with students from a much larger number of public schools. Students
from the best public schools in the area tend to go to more prestigious
colleges and universities.
Dr. Mark H. Shapiro
The Irascible Professor
http://www.IrascibleProfessor.com
"C. Smith" wrote:
>
> In article <38643D2B...@caribe.net>, Richard A. Beldin, Ph.D.
> <rabe...@caribe.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I did a study in 1998 that rated high schools on the subsequent
> > performance of the students in college math courses. The results were
> > lopsided in favor of private schools. No public school had more than 65%
> > of their students passing the Algebra and Trig course. There were some
> > poor private schools too, mostly run by religious groups. There were
> > some good religious and secular private schools with 90% or more of the
> > students passing the course in question.
> >
> > Wally Williams wrote:
> >
> > > With all the argument about school vouchers/choice, will
> > > someone tell me what empirical evidence exists that a private
> > > or parochial school education is better than that of a public
> > > school? It's common knowledge, I know, but is there any actual
> > > data to support this "fact," or is it just intuitive?
>
> But this is not evidence that a private school education is better than
> a public school education. The study does not control for the
> differences in the two samples. Private school students are, by
> defintion, a self selected group. Public school students are, by their
> nature, effectively not. Public schools in affluent areas (where
> property prices act as a gatekeeper) perform as well as any private
> school (who's admissions policy acts as a gatekeeper).
>
> I have yet to see any evidence that a private school provided a better
> education merely because it was private.
>
> C. Smith
Wally Williams
public schools accept all applicants, and private schools turn away 2 out of
3? Would your figures be the same if you excluded the bottom two-thirds of
the public school graduates?
"Richard A. Beldin, Ph.D." wrote:
> Yes, I did a study in 1998 that rated high schools on the subsequent
> performance of the students in college math courses. The results were
> lopsided in favor of private schools. No public school had more than 65%
> of their students passing the Algebra and Trig course. There were some
> poor private schools too, mostly run by religious groups. There were
> some good religious and secular private schools with 90% or more of the
> students passing the course in question.
>
> Wally Williams wrote:
>
> > With all the argument about school vouchers/choice, will
> > someone tell me what empirical evidence exists that a private
> > or parochial school education is better than that of a public
> > school? It's common knowledge, I know, but is there any actual
> > data to support this "fact," or is it just intuitive?
--
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
mQGiBDVjsMsRBADCNvojDnDe7nUcQ3FKut8x7NCvk1zrWVgXyq6+i6O4fno2f6v5
TUJMXbxzhAScVj2Z1BasRUzXNG2nYuy4QS6RJqasgLdtinow+NS+GpBBLJ7W5EdE
+yEh+4u1A5hX/yuyfXezuIHNndG1VS/BqlwHpxWfDvRUmqFXiNjxvHYOgQCg/4vG
F9Yk2cNXyhE85KJCptzBYusD/R1/O/iTSvhBHQjEnXyUnUBn+oNOwHGlOnwqDVOJ
HVRlt1czq2j8yULO0hC1RykzYKs//sBv/749IxzVRj3cZzq8Janl7PJ9Jog9uRL6
NpNq9Iod4Jzy3I5Bo2UWmaMG6jULM7NUUWwKwUgCN6cd2Y8OXgFCuE7pPT62lZ0W
wulpA/9/5IoDo72cmaj9CdG2EnWPMkMPmRKTquk7hnpK9Nef4lAeuxwYnXhitYZg
4Krg+Z+BY+ibotpKvY4KyeX1WYUQhNp2N+auxu3SbexFk8F90vAFW5O1qkqFGIL0
5EdWI100LkMOYlg5+CKZmQoNE7sGKZEKQDzXaW05elYyp7E897QjV2FsbHkgV2ls
bGlhbXMgPHdpbGxpYW1zQGFpbmV0LmNvbT6JAEsEEBECAAsFAjVjsMsECwMBAgAK
CRCOC/0sZl7RrMURAKC57iUSQzN5anjDBehjhGoCUTCaHwCfXtvVsDIbc1SZKjbu
ogDTVmGfEwu5AQ0ENWOw0RAEAO94/tpSp/5JNzlhC9XuKNV9sfKYnrf5HmWb2nBu
NkDLf3PwocRyYwJLkpCD6E4scZLdoZjkKgQ9LCdu+FO6BIB9mpflHhfzJJiNKpOY
nFnY+qNc+5/WnSzt1d6P6jGzeSGAe7lcygdNGIfVyt5uy9A+kPGxljkOZ/x9PHNo
2Bl5AAICBADUsUqQS9vWXwiLAJ69zgC6wKqaJrv8cDNXCw2+w1OS9r5KXE/M9Gs5
Zxuu17wDt5TLejpBUoBjUIJns4vywK9mAqF3HPBYgwEWHmtwmwaSR0JIf8K082kn
MN6HJyt1nWGA4WKbwuJoMTbzOSnFZnduIJ6xPMmigGFtSr6bLmbS0okAPwMFGDVj
sNGOC/0sZl7RrBEC7VAAn1/UUuoImxKM3+6W5K42tFdrwydOAJsH71F+ElklCSJA
yVqNu0p0rgO9Og==
=HJ7v
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Ron McDermott
wrote:
> With all the argument about school vouchers/choice, will
> someone tell me what empirical evidence exists that a private
> or parochial school education is better than that of a public
> school?
The belief is based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of
statistics with regard to comparing dissimilar populations as if they
WERE similar. The populations of private and public schools are not
comparable statistically.
> It's common knowledge,
It's legend and clearly incorrect in many cases (for example, locally
to me it is incorrect).
> I know, but is there any actual
> data to support this "fact," or is it just intuitive?
There is no data which would support the universal statement above
(the best you could get would be a general trend), and there is NO
data, based upon comparisons of statistically similar samples in both
systems, which bears out this belief.
Ron McDermott
<rabe...@caribe.net> wrote:
> Yes, I did a study in 1998 that rated high schools on the subsequent
> performance of the students in college math courses.
Did your study compensate at all for the dissimilarity in the
population samples? It certainly doesn't appear that there was any
attempt to do so? Or did you assume that the populations WERE
similar? If you made that assumption, on what did you base it?
In virtually every category of identifiable indicators of academic
success (income level, two-parent families, parental education level,
racial makeup, and on and on), private school students, on average,
possess positive indicators to a much greater extent than do public
school students. Thus any comparison made involves multiple ALREADY
IDENTIFIED factors which ensure success INDEPENDENT of the school
being attended. If these factors were not considered in your study,
your results cannot indicate ANYTHING with respect to any perceived
advantage of private vs. public schooling.
C. Smith
<igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
(snip)
> MK. Csmith is correct that the problem of self-selection contaminates
> conclusions drawn from comparisons of independent and State schools in
> the US.
Yes.
> This objection is not as large as it first appears,
Yes, it is.
> and there is an obvious way around it.
No, there isn't.
> One way around the problem is to compare
> performance of entire polties:
No, no and no. The same self selection problems exist, indeed they are
worse in some sense. You now have a both a micro and amacro level
problem so to speak.
> those which support parents' choices,
> and those which do not. Singapore, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Denmark,
> Czech Republic, Sweden, and Belgium support a parent's choice of
> school, outside State schools. Alaska subsidizes homeschooling, and
> counts homeschoolers as enrolled in the State system. Homeschoolers
> outperform conventionally schooled children, and Alaska's 90th
> percentile score (1996 NAEP 8th grade Numbers and Operations, Algebra
> and Functions subtests) is the highest in the US. Too bad we don't have
> NAEP baseline data for Alaska from before they instituted the
> homeschool subsidy.
So all of this is essentially worthless to the point being argued here.
> MK. To suppose that family influences (income, "involvement", etc)
> account for the difference between independent schools and State
> schools is to suppose that parents who pay $X,000 for independent
> schools are systematically deluded.
No, the delusion is apparently all at your end. Your supposition is
false since it fails to acknowledge that parents can both achieve the
desired result by other means and have other goals in choosing a
private school.
> To assert that independent school
> students would have done just as well in state schools is to assert
> that these successfully concerned parents just threw $x,000 down the
> toilet. That tuition could have otherwise been spent on food, travel,
> or a Nikon microscope with camera for junior.
This assertion only holds if you convienently ignore other factors.
Try again.
C. Smith
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> Yes, I did a study in 1998 that rated high schools on the subsequent
> performance of the students in college math courses. The results were
> lopsided in favor of private schools. No public school had more than 65%
> of their students passing the Algebra and Trig course. There were some
> poor private schools too, mostly run by religious groups. There were
> some good religious and secular private schools with 90% or more of the
> students passing the course in question.
The basic flaw in your study is the assumption that the only variable
affecting student achievement is the quality of instruction in the
school. That, of course, is an assumption which is not in evidence.
Student motivation, dedication to task, parental involvement are all
variables which contribute to student achievement, to say nothing of
individual inherited intelligence.
Your study did not control those variables, hence, its conclusions are
not reliable, and they infer conclusions which cannot be made on the
basis of the failure to control those variables.
alan
panther
"C. Smith" <csmith...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> panther wrote:
>
MK. Discussion deleted (State school versus independent schools; any
evidence for superiority of independent schools?)...
>
better
> > > education merely because it was private.
>
start with Chubb and Moe. Read the excerpt from Zembrano (that may be
Zambrano, sorry), below.
>
> > MK. Csmith is correct that the problem of self-selection
contaminates
> > conclusions drawn from comparisons of independent and State schools
in
> > the US.
>
>
> > This objection is not as large as it first appears,...
>
> Yes, it is.
>
MK. Unless we are to get into a fruitless exchange of "Yes it is/No it
isn't", Csmith must explain why he disputes this. This is why I do not
consider the objection significant: Csmith says that sample self-
selection produces the result we observe. One function of vouchers is
precisely to allow sample self selection, a better match between
students and schools. Locate parents on a two-dimensional
continuum:<means, inclination>. Current private school parents have the
means to purchase schooling at independent schools, and the inclination
to do so. Indifferent wealthy parents have the means but not the
inclination. Poor indifferent parents lack means and inclination (There
are fewer of these than teachers would have you believe). School
vouchers would assist poor parents who care for their children's
prospects, parents without means but with the inclination. If -overall,
aggregate- performance improves due to the change in results for one
group, still, overall performabnce has improved. We discuss another
reason why self selection is not a major criticism below.
>
> > and there is an obvious way around it.
>
>
> > One way around the problem is to compare
> > performance of entire polties:
>
> are worse in some sense. You now have a both a micro and amacro level
> problem so to speak.
>
> > and those which do not. Singapore, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Denmark,
> > Czech Republic, Sweden, and Belgium support a parent's choice of
> > school, outside State schools. Alaska subsidizes homeschooling, and
> > counts homeschoolers as enrolled in the State system. Homeschoolers
> > outperform conventionally schooled children, and Alaska's 90th
> > percentile score (1996 NAEP 8th grade Numbers and Operations,
Algebra
> > and Functions subtests) is the highest in the US. Too bad we don't
have
> > NAEP baseline data for Alaska from before they instituted the
> > homeschool subsidy.
>
here.
>
results apply across a range of countries. This looks like evidence to
me. b) Even without baseline data for Alaska, if Alaska's institutional
profile (aside from subsidized homeschool) would lead you to predict a
lower 90th percentile, the institutional difference, homeschool, is a
likely explanation for the difference. Again, go back to that <means,
inclination> continuum, and imagine what enhacned parent control could
accomplish.
>
> > MK. To suppose that family influences (income, "involvement", etc)
> > account for the difference between independent schools and State
> > schools is to suppose that parents who pay $X,000 for independent
> > schools are systematically deluded.
>
>
MK. You say the sweetest things. Give us a kiss.
>
> ...Your supposition...
>
MK. What supposition? -I- don't suppose that parents of children in
independent schools are deluded.
>
> ...is false since it fails to acknowledge that parents can both
achieve the desired result by other means and have other goals in
choosing a private school.
>
parents chose independent schools often enough that those schools have
greater success, in aggregate (NAEP, SAT) and in detail (rates of
minority graduation, college admission, college graduation). Their
success validates their choice. The fact that parents have a range of
options and select (successful) independent schools lends weight to the
argument that independent schools' success is no accident. b) If
parents are concerned with other things (and there is a lot to this: if
you pay more than $4,000/year tuition, you're probably buying social
exclusion or prestige, not education), and get better education as an
unintended consequence, then the argument for superiority of
independent schools is stronger than we thought. Even with children
whose parents aren't concerned with -education-, independent schools do
a better job. Here, Csmith has weakened his self-selection argument,
seems to me.
>
> > To assert that independent school
> > students would have done just as well in state schools is to assert
> > that these successfully concerned parents just threw $x,000 down the
> > toilet. That tuition could have otherwise been spent on food,
travel,
> > or a Nikon microscope with camera for junior.
>
> Try again.
>
do they weaken my arguments?
>
MK. "Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may
economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads
to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in
nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action
problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be
redundant -and- [ital. in the original, MK] costly. The results support
a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.)case in
which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state
or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives
and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in
society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory
state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy
changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left
for further work. [Eduardo Zembrano, "Formal Models of Authority",
Rationality and Society, V.11, #2. May, 1999].
>
MK. From: Hyman and Penroe, Journal of School Psychology.
"Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school
children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the
traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988;
Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990). Extrapolation from these
studies suggests that psychological maltreatment of school children,
especially those who are poor, is fairly widespread in the United
States...."
school violence project, an informal survey of a random group of inner
city high school students was conducted. When asked why they
misbehaved in school, the most common response was that they wanted to
get back at teachers who put them down, did not care about them, or
showed disrespect for them, their families, or their culture...."
"...schools do not encourage research regarding possible emotional
maltreatment of students by staff or investigatiion into how this
behavior might affect student misbehavior...."
"...Since these studies focused on teacher-induced PTSD and explored
all types of teacher maltreatment, some of the aggressive feelings were
also caused by physical or sexual abuse. There was no attempt to
separate actual aggression from feelings of aggression. The results
indicated that at least 1% to 2% of the respondents' symptoms were
sufficient for a diagnosis of PTSD. It is known that when this
disorder develops as a result of interpersonal violence, externalizing
symptoms are often the result (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)."
"While 1% to 2% might not seem to be a large percentage of a school-
aged population, in a system like New York City, this would be about
10,000 children so traumatized by educators that they may suffer
serious, and sometimes lifelong emotional problems (Hyman, 1990; Hyman,
Zelikoff & Clarke, 1988). A good percentage of these students develop
angry and aggressive responses as a result. Yet, emotional abuse and
its relation to misbehavior in schools receives little pedagogical,
psychological, or legal attention and is rarely mentioned in textbooks
on school discipline (Pokalo & Hyman, 1993, Sarno, 1992)."
"As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional
maltreatment in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic
status (SES) of the student population (Hyman, 1990)."
>
>"The issue of social skills. One edition of Home School Researcher,
Volume 8, Number 3, contains two research reports on the issue of
social skills. The first finding of the study by Larry Shyers (1992)
was that home-schooled students received significantly lower problem
behavior scores than schooled children. His next finding was that home-
schooled children are socially well adjusted, but schooled children are
not so well adjusted. Shyers concludes that we are asking the wrong
question when we ask about the social adjustment of home-schooled
children. The real question is why is the social; adjustment of
schooled children of such poor quality?"
>
"The second study, by Thomas Smedley (1992), used different test
instruments but comes to the same conclusion, that home-educated
children are more mature and better socialized than those attending
school." ...p. 277
>
"12. So-called 'school phobia' is actually more likely to be a sign
of mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized
mental health problem"...[Roland Meighan, "Home-based Education
Effectiveness Research and Some of its Implications", p.281,
Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.
>
"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it
is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe
level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and
originality.
School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole span of human
existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks, new and
unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense and common
decency."
--H.L. Mencken
>
"I'm sorry I have so much rage, but you put it in me." --Dylan Klebold
>
MK. Background reading, for those trained in economics or evolutionary
biology:
>
Axelrod, R., "The Evolution of Cooperation".
>
Chubb and Moe, "Politics, Markets, and America's Schools".
>
West, E., "Education and the State".
>
Hirschliefer, J. "Anarchy and its Breakdown" [Journal of Political
Economy].
>
Olsen, M., "The End of the Middle Way", [American Economic Review].
>
Young and Marcoulier, "The Black Hole of Graft; The Predatory State and
the Informal Economy", [American Economic Review].
Herman Rubin
Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 03:42:35, "Richard A. Beldin, Ph.D."
>> Yes, I did a study in 1998 that rated high schools on the subsequent
>> performance of the students in college math courses.
>Did your study compensate at all for the dissimilarity in the
>population samples? It certainly doesn't appear that there was any
>attempt to do so? Or did you assume that the populations WERE
>similar? If you made that assumption, on what did you base it?
>In virtually every category of identifiable indicators of academic
>success (income level, two-parent families, parental education level,
>racial makeup, and on and on), private school students, on average,
>possess positive indicators to a much greater extent than do public
>school students. Thus any comparison made involves multiple ALREADY
>IDENTIFIED factors which ensure success INDEPENDENT of the school
>being attended. If these factors were not considered in your study,
>your results cannot indicate ANYTHING with respect to any perceived
>advantage of private vs. public schooling.
Could it be that there is nothing causal in the variables
you list? There are causal effects which are correlated
with them, but the hyperegalitarians cannot accept that
there are, firstly, individual differences, and secondly,
cultural differences, which affect the results.
The present school system does not allow the individual
differences to affect education much, and very little in
the early grades. For cultural differences, it tends to
emphasize the resistance to education, by placing the age
peer group first. It is unfortunately true that the
level of what a student can get is determined more by
what the other students and the parents can get them to
learn than by the quality of the teachers.
The child who is willing and able to break out of the
rut should not only be allowed to, but encouraged. It
is time to get those who retard them, either by intent
or by inability to do otherwise, out of the way.
Those who come from disadvantaged groups and have the
ability can succeed in the true academic sense, not the
pap which the schools are giving, only if they have a
way of getting out, and the earlier the better.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
David Gossman
Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-dKM3zUGiw0Ym@localhost...
On the flip side there are studies performed by the Ill Math and Science
Academy showing that their students outperform students who do not attend
IMSA yet have all the other same demographic and intelligence background.
That would suggest that at least the better students in our schools can
perform significantly better than they do now. Institutions like IMSA exist
in only a handful of states and are available to only a limited number of
students. Beyond the process of selecting the best students within certain
demographic criteria the cause of this improved performance is worth some
attention. I suspect it includes but is certainly not limited to:
1. A residential environment where students have the opportunity to live and
socialize with their true peers.
2. Committed teachers who are not members of a union and half of whom are
not even certified teachers (many have been college professors).
3. An always changing and experimental program of accelerated learning not
only in math and science but the other disciplines as well.
4. A mentorship and self directed learning program for students to do
original research.
5. An environment where better students are not put down by others, where
academic achievement is praised and rewarded, and where students show an
astounding level of tolerance for one another and their different cultural
backgrounds. Even the clicks (which still form) are highly tolerant of one
another.
At least some of these characteristics would seem to be possible in a
private school environment and produce the same improvement in performance.
Not being familiar with more than a small handful of private schools I
cannot further expound on this idea but would find it of interest to see
what the private school advocates in the group think of this.
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
Bill Mechlenburg
children go to school should not hinge on whether private schools are better
than public schools. There are both excellent public schools and poor
private schools.
There is a wealth of data and years of experience proving that free market
competition improves both the cost and quality of products and services.
Freedom of choice is one of the tenets of the American way.
Providing parental freedom of choice via vouchers or other means cannot help
but improve the quality of education - both public and private.
The objective should be to improve the quality of education - not to favor
private schools or put public schools out of business.
--
Bill
wm...@att.net
For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to
http://home.att.net/~wmech
Wally Williams <will...@ainet.com> wrote in message
news:3864085F...@ainet.com...
> With all the argument about school vouchers/choice, will
> someone tell me what empirical evidence exists that a private
> or parochial school education is better than that of a public
> school? It's common knowledge, I know, but is there any actual
Richard A. Beldin, Ph.D.
schools of their students' performance as a group. It is my contention that
"understanding the causal factors" is of less immediate importance than
providing reliable feedback to the teachers of how well their students are
doing later on. I leave the theorizing to others. Let's close the loop and let
teachers draw their own conclusions about what to do.
Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
> Richard A. Beldin, Ph.D. wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I did a study in 1998 that rated high schools on the subsequent
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> The argument as to whether parents should have a choice as to where their
> children go to school should not hinge on whether private schools are better
> than public schools. There are both excellent public schools and poor
> private schools.
>
> There is a wealth of data and years of experience proving that free market
> competition improves both the cost and quality of products and services.
Such as the situation in health care as evidenced by the HMO's. A
shining example of how the private sector programs are superior.
> Freedom of choice is one of the tenets of the American way.
As is the freedom to foot the bill for those choices.
>
> Providing parental freedom of choice via vouchers or other means cannot help
> but improve the quality of education - both public and private.
Assertion by opinion which is not substantiated by any documentation.
In point of fact, if one examines the decentralization aspects of the
NYC schools, one sees that even in a public institution, the
accountability and resultant services have severely declined when there
is lacking a strong centralized force. It is quite likely that the
quality of education will be greatly diminished under such as system
where individual schools set their own standards.
And we have not even touched the constitutional issues that likely make
vouchers unimplementable.
> The objective should be to improve the quality of education - not to favor
> private schools or put public schools out of business.
If that is your objective, then support increased funding for those
programs that exist; demand higherstandards through standardized
testing. Hold parents accountable for their children's failure to learn
what has been taught. Recognize that intelligence is inherited and that
not every child can achieve at the same level and that equality in
student achievement is never going to be attained.
Only after you accept those can you have a more realistic view of
education and its limitations.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> The point of the study was not to determine causal factors, but to inform the
> schools of their students' performance as a group.
Your study is then, unnecessary. Teachers already have the results of
standardized tests of content and various statewide achievement tests
which give them that information.
And besides, if that was your objective, then honesty would have
motivated you to include that disclaimer in your published results.
Stating such after the fact, and only when your results( and motivation
in publishing those results ) was published leads an informed reader to
suspect your intentions.
It is my contention that
> "understanding the causal factors" is of less immediate importance than
> providing reliable feedback to the teachers of how well their students are
> doing later on.
If you don't understand the nature of the problem, you can't solve it.
Doctors don't treat the symptoms of a disease; they treat the cause.
Because it was not convenient for your study to include those results
does in no way reveal that those variables are in point of fact not
contributary to the results. To ignore them and then say they are
irrelevant( as you apparently have done ) is poor scholarship.
And as I stated previously, teachers already have other standardized
results that reveal poor student achievement, so you study adds nothing
that was not already known.
I leave the theorizing to others. Let's close the loop and let
> teachers draw their own conclusions about what to do.
>
That, is a cop out when your motivation for publishing your study is
questioned.
Alan
David Gossman
Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:386759...@erols.com...
>
> If that is your objective, then support increased funding for those
> programs that exist; demand higherstandards through standardized
> testing. Hold parents accountable for their children's failure to learn
> what has been taught. Recognize that intelligence is inherited and that
> not every child can achieve at the same level and that equality in
> student achievement is never going to be attained.
>
> Only after you accept those can you have a more realistic view of
> education and its limitations.
>
You want to hold parents accountable for their child's learning but give
them no choice of the teacher or teaching method. Sounds like an excuse to
shift the blame. Have you no shame?
Bill Mechlenburg
the status quo free from the pressures of competition.
--
Bill
wm...@att.net
For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to
http://home.att.net/~wmech
Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:386759...@erols.com...
> If that is your objective, then support increased funding for those
> programs that exist; demand higherstandards through standardized
> testing. Hold parents accountable for their children's failure to learn
> what has been taught. Recognize that intelligence is inherited and that
> not every child can achieve at the same level and that equality in
> student achievement is never going to be attained.
>
> Only after you accept those can you have a more realistic view of
> education and its limitations.
>
> Alan
Herman Rubin
Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote:
>Bill Mechlenburg wrote:
..................
>> The objective should be to improve the quality of education - not to favor
>> private schools or put public schools out of business.
>If that is your objective, then support increased funding for those
>programs that exist; demand higherstandards through standardized
>testing.
The first thing which must be done is to make schools available
where students who are willing and able to learn to do so, not
hindered by the inability of other students or of the teachers.
We need schools where subject matter learning will dominate;
the present schools MAY be fine for the jocks and learning
disabled, but those who can do better need the opportunity.
Hold parents accountable for their children's failure to learn
>what has been taught.
What if the children are unable to do so? What if the teacher
fails to recognize that the child needs a different explanation?
Recognize that intelligence is inherited and that
>not every child can achieve at the same level and that equality in
>student achievement is never going to be attained.
This is one thing we agree upon. But you do not seem willing
to push it far enough. As children are different, they should
proceed at different rates, and even in different manners.
Also, if the child has learned something outside the school,
pass that child on. This can be accomplished by many means,
including just getting out of the way, but not by the present
heterogeneous classes or by age grouping, even with tracking.
>Only after you accept those can you have a more realistic view of
>education and its limitations.
To do these, you will need schools manned by people who have
not been through the present schools of education.
David Gossman
Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-oqTrPVxdmGGu@localhost...
> On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:07:58, "David Gossman"
> <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
> > news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-dKM3zUGiw0Ym@localhost...
> > > On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:57:19, Wally Williams <will...@ainet.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > With all the argument about school vouchers/choice, will
> > > > someone tell me what empirical evidence exists that a private
> > > > or parochial school education is better than that of a public
> > > > school?
> > >
> > > The belief is based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of
> > > statistics with regard to comparing dissimilar populations as if they
> > > WERE similar. The populations of private and public schools are not
> > > comparable statistically.
> > >
> > > > It's common knowledge,
> > >
> > > It's legend and clearly incorrect in many cases (for example, locally
> > > to me it is incorrect).
> > >
> > > > I know, but is there any actual
> > > > data to support this "fact," or is it just intuitive?
> > >
> > > There is no data which would support the universal statement above
> > > (the best you could get would be a general trend), and there is NO
> > > data, based upon comparisons of statistically similar samples in both
> > > systems, which bears out this belief.
> >
> > On the flip side there are studies performed by the Ill Math and Science
> > Academy showing that their students outperform students who do not
attend
> > IMSA yet have all the other same demographic and intelligence
background.
> > That would suggest that at least the better students in our schools can
> > perform significantly better than they do now.
>
> And in THIS I would agree. I agree wholeheartedly that we are
> shortchanging our best students, and wish that this would change.
How, given the current philosophy of public education?
>
> > Institutions like IMSA exist
> > in only a handful of states and are available to only a limited number
of
> > students. Beyond the process of selecting the best students within
certain
> > demographic criteria the cause of this improved performance is worth
some
> > attention. I suspect it includes but is certainly not limited to:
> >
> > 1. A residential environment where students have the opportunity to live
and
> > socialize with their true peers.
> >
> > 2. Committed teachers who are not members of a union and half of whom
are
> > not even certified teachers (many have been college professors).
>
> This is your philosophical take on things, but unionizing is, imo,
> immaterial (especially given that "many college professors" are
> unionized). Further, uncertified teachers aren't, by definition,
> "good"; nor are former college professors necessarily "good" either.
But the point is that certifications and unions are clearly not necessary.
Then one must ask if they are a benefit or a hinderance to improving schools
that need improving. My first hand experience provides a clear answer - not
a "philosophical take".
>
> > 3. An always changing and experimental program of accelerated learning
not
> > only in math and science but the other disciplines as well.
> >
> > 4. A mentorship and self directed learning program for students to do
> > original research.
> >
> > 5. An environment where better students are not put down by others,
where
> > academic achievement is praised and rewarded, and where students show an
> > astounding level of tolerance for one another and their different
cultural
> > backgrounds. Even the clicks
>
> Cliques?
Yes. (So much for a spell checker.)
>
> > (which still form) are highly tolerant of one another.
>
> > At least some of these characteristics would seem to be possible in a
> > private school environment and produce the same improvement in
performance.
>
> No more so than in a public school with the proper community backing.
> You're speaking of a PARTICULAR private school setting, not a general
> one. In my area, the public schools outperform the private schools
> given the same student demographics... AND... Provide a far more
> extensive education as well.
You missed the point. See the "seem possible"? Certainly the current
circumstances of funding and institutional development would only produce
this sort of environment at about the same percentage level that it is found
in the public schools, ie almost zero.
>
> > Not being familiar with more than a small handful of private schools I
> > cannot further expound on this idea but would find it of interest to see
> > what the private school advocates in the group think of this.
>
> I've taught in both. The difference is in discipline and in the
> student body itself. The instructors in a public school in NY are
> generally superior to those in private schools. The course offerrings
> also tend to be superior. Discipline is better in private schools.
> Students are more serious and more motivated in private schools.
> There is virtually no difference in curriculum, teaching methods, etc,
> between the two. I suspect that things are similar elsewhere.
Sounds like the clear difference that pushes against private schools in your
experience is the quality of the teachers. Care to reflect on how vouchers
would impact that? How could "course offerings also tend to be superior" if
there is "no difference in curriculum"?
Ron McDermott
Rubin) wrote:
> In article <87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-VflljjF2eVRY@localhost>,
> Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 03:42:35, "Richard A. Beldin, Ph.D."
> ><rabe...@caribe.net> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I did a study in 1998 that rated high schools on the subsequent
> >> performance of the students in college math courses.
>
> >Did your study compensate at all for the dissimilarity in the
> >population samples? It certainly doesn't appear that there was any
> >attempt to do so? Or did you assume that the populations WERE
> >similar? If you made that assumption, on what did you base it?
>
> >In virtually every category of identifiable indicators of academic
> >success (income level, two-parent families, parental education level,
> >racial makeup, and on and on), private school students, on average,
> >possess positive indicators to a much greater extent than do public
> >school students. Thus any comparison made involves multiple ALREADY
> >IDENTIFIED factors which ensure success INDEPENDENT of the school
> >being attended. If these factors were not considered in your study,
> >your results cannot indicate ANYTHING with respect to any perceived
> >advantage of private vs. public schooling.
>
> Could it be that there is nothing causal in the variables
> you list?
"Could it be"? Sure. Is it likely that these are not causal? I
don't think so.
Ron McDermott
> Institutions like IMSA exist
> in only a handful of states and are available to only a limited number of
> students. Beyond the process of selecting the best students within certain
> demographic criteria the cause of this improved performance is worth some
> attention. I suspect it includes but is certainly not limited to:
>
> 1. A residential environment where students have the opportunity to live and
> socialize with their true peers.
>
> 2. Committed teachers who are not members of a union and half of whom are
> not even certified teachers (many have been college professors).
This is your philosophical take on things, but unionizing is, imo,
immaterial (especially given that "many college professors" are
unionized). Further, uncertified teachers aren't, by definition,
"good"; nor are former college professors necessarily "good" either.
> 3. An always changing and experimental program of accelerated learning not
> only in math and science but the other disciplines as well.
>
> 4. A mentorship and self directed learning program for students to do
> original research.
>
> 5. An environment where better students are not put down by others, where
> academic achievement is praised and rewarded, and where students show an
> astounding level of tolerance for one another and their different cultural
> backgrounds. Even the clicks
Cliques?
> (which still form) are highly tolerant of one another.
> At least some of these characteristics would seem to be possible in a
> private school environment and produce the same improvement in performance.
No more so than in a public school with the proper community backing.
You're speaking of a PARTICULAR private school setting, not a general
one. In my area, the public schools outperform the private schools
given the same student demographics... AND... Provide a far more
extensive education as well.
> Not being familiar with more than a small handful of private schools I
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> Pure sophistic obfuscation being engaged in by someone desperate to maintain
> the status quo free from the pressures of competition.
Obfuscation that apparently was so good that you were unable to reply to
its substance.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:386759...@erols.com...
> >
> > programs that exist; demand higherstandards through standardized
> > what has been taught. Recognize that intelligence is inherited and that
> > not every child can achieve at the same level and that equality in
> > student achievement is never going to be attained.
> >
> > education and its limitations.
> >
> them no choice of the teacher or teaching method. Sounds like an excuse to
> shift the blame. Have you no shame?
Teaching is not some magical thing that is mysterious. It's quite easy
to be a decent teacher and teach a given curriculum in a manner in which
the kids can learn it. The problem, and the major problem, is that
parents do not want to face the reality that their kids don't do as well
as they would like because either their kids don't put in enough time,
or their inherited intellectual abilities limit that achievement. The
issues or "choice" and "teaching method" are smokescreens for failure to
take a good hard look at themselves and come to grips with the real
reason for differences in student achievement. Those methods you tout
are only methods which foster the belief that something else, other than
personal attributes is the cause for failure.
Until you can document that the teaching in a school is unsatisfactory,
that the curriculum is not being taught and taught according to the
stated level of difficulty, then you have no arguement. And you also
have no shame for blaming others what in reality are deficiencies
inherent in yourself. Hardly demonstrative of integrity.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> In article <386759...@erols.com>,
> Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Bill Mechlenburg wrote:
>
> ..................
>
> >> The objective should be to improve the quality of education - not to favor
> >> private schools or put public schools out of business.
>
> >programs that exist; demand higherstandards through standardized
> >testing.
>
> where students who are willing and able to learn to do so, not
> hindered by the inability of other students or of the teachers.
Herman, if public schools were allowed to use that criteria now, we'd
have far fewer students andmuch better results. Regrettably, excluding
all those who do not wish to learn is not a viable option.
> We need schools where subject matter learning will dominate;
> the present schools MAY be fine for the jocks and learning
> disabled, but those who can do better need the opportunity.
Herman, I seem to recall a recent exchange we had on just that topic
with regard to the policies at YOUR institution. I seem to recall that
you presented a most weak arguement, as your school appears to engage in
policies which are opposite to the ones you propose.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
> Hold parents accountable for their children's failure to learn
> >what has been taught.
>
> What if the children are unable to do so? What if the teacher
> fails to recognize that the child needs a different explanation?
If the child has a tangible, identifiable condition that affects such
learning, then there is special education. If not, then get on his case
to study harder.
> Recognize that intelligence is inherited and that
> >not every child can achieve at the same level and that equality in
> >student achievement is never going to be attained.
>
> This is one thing we agree upon. But you do not seem willing
> to push it far enough. As children are different, they should
> proceed at different rates, and even in different manners.
> Also, if the child has learned something outside the school,
> pass that child on. This can be accomplished by many means,
> including just getting out of the way, but not by the present
> heterogeneous classes or by age grouping, even with tracking.
Herman, I have always been in favor of homogeneous grouping. Where you
and I differ is that you want the standard for the elite to be the
standard for all. You have been taken to task on that elitism many,
many times, by myself and a host of others.
> >Only after you accept those can you have a more realistic view of
> >education and its limitations.
>
> To do these, you will need schools manned by people who have
> not been through the present schools of education.
Perhaps.
Alan
David Gossman
Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3868A9...@erols.com...
> David Gossman wrote:
> >
> > Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > news:386759...@erols.com...
> > >
> > > If that is your objective, then support increased funding for those
> > > programs that exist; demand higherstandards through standardized
> > > testing. Hold parents accountable for their children's failure to
learn
> > > what has been taught. Recognize that intelligence is inherited and
that
> > > not every child can achieve at the same level and that equality in
> > > student achievement is never going to be attained.
> > >
> > > Only after you accept those can you have a more realistic view of
> > > education and its limitations.
> > >
> > You want to hold parents accountable for their child's learning but give
> > them no choice of the teacher or teaching method. Sounds like an excuse
to
> > shift the blame. Have you no shame?
>
> Teaching is not some magical thing that is mysterious. It's quite easy
> to be a decent teacher and teach a given curriculum in a manner in which
> the kids can learn it. The problem, and the major problem, is that
> parents do not want to face the reality that their kids don't do as well
> as they would like because either their kids don't put in enough time,
> or their inherited intellectual abilities limit that achievement. The
> issues or "choice" and "teaching method" are smokescreens for failure to
> take a good hard look at themselves and come to grips with the real
> reason for differences in student achievement. Those methods you tout
> are only methods which foster the belief that something else, other than
> personal attributes is the cause for failure.
>
> Until you can document that the teaching in a school is unsatisfactory,
> that the curriculum is not being taught and taught according to the
> stated level of difficulty, then you have no arguement. And you also
> have no shame for blaming others what in reality are deficiencies
> inherent in yourself. Hardly demonstrative of integrity.
>
You were the one that tried to shift responsibility without the needed level
of authority. This is a standard technique, give someone the responsibility
but not the authority to get the job done. You want to put parents with kids
in the ps system in that position in order to avoid any responsibility on
the part of the teacher. As for my personal situation I home school so you
can hardly accuse me of "deficiencies inherent in myself". Add to that an 18
year old daughter who is 3 hours from being a senior in college and has a
4.0. (Boy did you step in that one. I love it when replies to my posts
become this humorous. Keep it up.)
shel...@my-deja.com
rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> I've taught in both. The difference is in discipline and in the
> student body itself. The instructors in a public school in NY are
> generally superior to those in private schools. The course offerrings
> also tend to be superior. Discipline is better in private schools.
> Students are more serious and more motivated in private schools.
> There is virtually no difference in curriculum, teaching methods, etc,
> between the two. I suspect that things are similar elsewhere.
Excluding New York City's specialized high schools (Bronx Science,
Stuyvesant, etc.), your statement -- assuming you're including high
schools -- is way off from the mainstream. This could be because your
experience is limited to a few specific schools. I live in NJ
(educated in NYC public schools); after our experiences with the public
schools in our district over the past 15 years, my younger daughter,
with our full support and encouragement, left the system and entered a
private HS (9th grade). I agree or disagree on your following specific
points:
1. Superiority of instructors - this is very subjective, but
"superiority" -- no matter how you define it -- varies greatly from
teacher to teacher, school to school, etc. The only difference is in
cases of "inferior" instructors -- private schools can dismiss them
easier than public schools.
2. Discipline - Generally, I agree with you. However, there are also
disciplinary motivators in private schools such as encampusment and
even expulsion for infractions often ignored or treated lightly in
public schools. Again, discipline incidents and policies vary greatly
from school to school.
3. Course offerings - Your statement couldn't be further from reality
and I'll back that up with the following news article from yesterday's
Trenton Times: http://www.nj.com/mercer/times/stories/12-27-
VURBEYVB.html
The district in this article has many more course offerings than mine
(adjoining) -- and our district is much larger, with 3 high schools to
their one. Public schools in my district shortchange anyone above
average -- unless you're above average in everything, where you're
classified as "gifted and talented" and get some recognition (but not a
challenging education). In my daughter's private school, she was
placed in honors English, a mix of 9th and 10th graders -- and it does
provide that extra help in verbal skills needed for the SATs.
Regarding enrichment, our local schools provide primarily high
competition team sports. My daughter is active in the equestrian
program, and is in several school clubs, including the astrology club
which meets at 9:30 PM.
4. Curriculum/teaching methods: Admittingly, a single-sex boarding
school is not for everybody. 18 months ago, my daughter thought such
places existed for punishment; subsequent research, visiting schools,
etc. changed everybody's opinions. The academic aspects of most
independent schools are unparalleled in public schools. Small class
sizes are just one aspect that enable instructors to teach more
efficiently. Academic support and study time is standardized, which
increases student accountability. If the class cooperates, the teacher
might take them out for pizza - just like that. There is no age
barrier; many middle school girls start HS level foreign language in
7th grade and my daughter's French 2 class has girls spanning 3 grades.
I'll end with this example -- in 8th grade, my daughter was in a
science class that used an outdated computer-dominated syllabus. She
challenged the teacher with more current information she read in the
newspapers and science magazines. But the computer said she was wrong,
so she was wrong. She lost interest, motivation, etc. When we met our
daughter's current teachers during parents' weekend, we questioned a
report card comment by her French teacher that she didn't participate
enough in class. We were surprised and asked our daughter why, and she
dsaid she always raised her hand, but wasn't called on. When we met
the teacher, we raised this issue, and was told there was an
expectation to just chime in. We had to remind the teacher that our
daughter just came out of an NJ public school, and would get
disciplined for talking out of turn if she did that.
David Gossman
<shel...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84b0fs$ajm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>My daughter is active in the equestrian
> program, and is in several school clubs, including the astrology club
> which meets at 9:30 PM.
>
I sure hope that is an astonomy club.:)
Bill Mechlenburg
--
Bill
wm...@att.net
For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to
http://home.att.net/~wmech
Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3868A8...@erols.com...
Bill Mechlenburg
--
Bill
wm...@att.net
For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to
http://home.att.net/~wmech
Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3868A9...@erols.com...
> David Gossman wrote:
> >
> > Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote in message
> Alan
Wally Williams
David Gossman wrote:
> <shel...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84b0fs$ajm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> >My daughter is active in the equestrian
> > program, and is in several school clubs, including the astrology club
> > which meets at 9:30 PM.
> >
> I sure hope that is an astonomy club.:)
Astonomy...Isn't that a medical procedure?
DillyTaunt
Richard A. Beldin, Ph.D.<rabe...@caribe.net>
(Re: his study on the superiority of private schools)
>Did your study compensate at all for the dissimilarity in
>the population samples? It certainly doesn't appear that
>there was any attempt to do so? Or did you assume that the
>populations WERE similar? If you made that assumption, on
>what did you base it?
I have no knowledge of Dr Beldin's study. But will that
stop me from jumping in? Hardly!
The assumption about like populations is fairly reasonable
in a number (not all) of studies. Often, the private (or charter, or
voucher) school is of limited size, and student slots are
opened by lottery. The randomly chosen students from
the general population pool are as likely to be of ethnic
minority background, single-parent homes, etc... as are
the general population in public schools. In the most
recent study I've looked at seriously (San Antonio, TX)
the private school had nearly identical demographics, but
improved academic results were only _marginally_
statistically significant. There's a study about a charter
school in the Princeton, NJ area similarly selecting
students by lot for a "rigorous curriculum" small (public)
charter school operating in parallel with the larger public
school.
Quite frankly, from a layman's dilettantish viewpoint, it
ain't whether the school is public or private as much as
whether the student-body-on-site is over or under 400.
LARGE schools seem, to me, to produce crappy results
regardless of funding.
>In virtually every category of identifiable indicators of
>academic success (income level, two-parent families,
>parental education level, racial makeup, and on and on),
>private school students, on average, possess positive
>indicators to a much greater extent than do public school
>students.
Well... yeah. Mostly. But mostly that data is about schools
supported by the sufficiently affluent. A few voucher
experiments (undertaken over great opposition) try to
control the variables you mention -- often using the
lottery-slotting techniques _I_ mention. Would you agree
that several such experiments in various states and
districts and venues are necessary before we can say, one
way or the other? OR do you have divine inspiration such
that no experiments are necessary?
I notice Ron didn't mention campus size. Would you agree,
sir, that campus size (students per facility) is an
"identifiable indicator of academic success"?
I note the TIMMS study has U.S. 4th Graders (typically
students attending a small neighborhood primary school)
doing nicely compared to their international peers. But
U.S. 9th-12th graders TIMMS results tend to point towards
the toilet... These are students who likewise tend to
attend consolidated large middle, Jr High, and High
Schools.
Texas has a wide range of High Schools sized from
graduating classes of less than a dozen to class-sizes of
many thousands. Many rural schools have significant
percentages of low-income, Native American and/or Hispanic
students. If you control for ethnicity, income, etc and
compare large (urban) public High Schools to small (rural)
public High Schools; to small (urban) PRIVATE High Schools,
you'd find that the small schools compare closely,
favorably. Brock, TX has an "Exemplary" High School on
per-pupil expenditures significantly less than any less
well regarded public High School in the Dallas or Ft Worth
Districts 60 miles to the east. Quite comparable to various
private schools and the ritzy-small-exclusive public High
Schools in the enclave "Park Cities" communities within the
Dallas city limits.
Size matters.
So my wife tells me, too.
Large schools and school systems tend to have another
problem so far unaddressed here. Cost-inefficiency.
Leaving aside for the moment whether (small) private
schools are "Better" in teaching reading, writing, and
'rithmetic... It is often (not always) true that privately
funded schools spend less-per-student to achieve their
results (whatever those are.) A recent sound-bite from
ABC-News' John Stossell compared NYC schools to NY Catholic
schools and found the church spending thousands per student
less. Now, the nuns -- or whoever -- had more like 40 kids
per classroom/teacher compared to the public schools' 20 or
so. But the populations were similar -- except that
(A) the school administrators had so few students to keep
track of they could track their troublemakers by name, on
one hand (B) a _known_ troublemaker could be roped in,
along with parents, for (literally) a come-to-Jesus meeting
putting the fear-o'-God (and fear-o'-expulsion) into their
nut-like brains. Leaving aside comparable schools test
results... this suggests that administration of a small
facility is significantly easier. Less expensive. To the
extent that "better" equals (to the taxpaying public)
"cheaper" there would seem to be compelling reasons to
shift to small schools, whether private or otherwise.
What keeps large public schools from breaking themselves
up into smaller organizations?
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> There was no substance to reply to.
A brief review of the original post in point of fact, reveals quite a
bit of substance. I shall summarize for you:
1) The assertion you made that there was a wealth of data indicating the
superiority of private sector services as compared to government run
ones. I posted a clear statement refuting that with the comparison of
private HMO's to government run Medicare. Obviously, you missed that.
2)You asserted that personal freedom through vouchers cannot but improve
education. I posted a clear example of how the decentralization on the
NYC schools refuted that. Obviously, you missed that item of substance
as well.
3)You posted an assertion that our objective should be to improve the
quality of education. I posted a challenge to you indicating several
ways in which you could do that. Again, you failed to respond.
In point of fact, when you are unable to respond, a good tactic is to
deny the validity of the opposition's arguements, as you do. However,
the facts require a response from you in that area. Simple denial is
insufficient.
Perhaps now that I have summarized the items of substance that require
your reply in a more concise manner, you will be able to respond.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> Pure nonsensical circular logic.
well, then perhaps you can point out precisely HOW it is nonesensical
and illogical. The points were succinctly made, the variables
identified. If they strike a politically incorrect tone, that is
regrettable, but facts are facts and need no political correctness to be
brought out. If my assertions are indeed factual in nature, that will
qualify.
Your glib response hardly satisfies as an intellectual refutation of
opposing points. Perhaps you can do better.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein
> > Teaching is not some magical thing that is mysterious. It's quite easy
> > to be a decent teacher and teach a given curriculum in a manner in which
> > the kids can learn it. The problem, and the major problem, is that
> > parents do not want to face the reality that their kids don't do as well
> > as they would like because either their kids don't put in enough time,
> > or their inherited intellectual abilities limit that achievement. The
> > issues or "choice" and "teaching method" are smokescreens for failure to
> > take a good hard look at themselves and come to grips with the real
> > reason for differences in student achievement. Those methods you tout
> > are only methods which foster the belief that something else, other than
> > personal attributes is the cause for failure.
> >
> > Until you can document that the teaching in a school is unsatisfactory,
> > that the curriculum is not being taught and taught according to the
> > stated level of difficulty, then you have no arguement. And you also
> > have no shame for blaming others what in reality are deficiencies
> > inherent in yourself. Hardly demonstrative of integrity.
> >
> You were the one that tried to shift responsibility without the needed level
> of authority.
Not true, it was you and others of your ilk that made the assertion that
schools were not doing their jobs, and touted alternatives to public
education. As such the burden of proof is on you and your ilk. I
clearly state that in my challenge above. I take the negative to your
assertions. My responsibility in debate given that position, is to
refute yours. I did that above. First, demonstrate that schools are
not doing their stated jobs. And remember; student achievement does not
necessarily indicate that.
This is a standard technique, give someone the responsibility
> but not the authority to get the job done. You want to put parents with kids
> in the ps system in that position in order to avoid any responsibility on
> the part of the teacher.
Nonesense. I clearly indicate that teaching should be done in a
satisfactory manner. Teachers have the responsibility to ply their
trade in such a manner.
But once they ply their trade in a satisfactory manner, the fault for
not learning must lie elsewhere.
As for my personal situation I home school so you
> can hardly accuse me of "deficiencies inherent in myself". Add to that an 18
> year old daughter who is 3 hours from being a senior in college and has a
> 4.0.
I applaud your daughter's success, and remind you that one example does
not permit you to generalize. There are considerably more students in
this country than your daughter, and the mass population will determine
what we can generalize; not the experiences of your daughter.
And for the record, the homeschool population generally falls into the
upper levels of inherited intelligence. Given what we know about
learning, it is quite likely that such a population will succeed in
whatever environment is provided. For your information, I am currently
involved in a study which seeks to determine whether a homeschooled
cohort or a schooled cohort performs in a superior manner when the
variables of curriculum and intelligence are common to both.
Perliminary results appear to indicate that for superior students, the
school experience produces better results. But the results are
preliminary and may not be statistically valid, due to sample size.
Just to let you know that when you control ALL the variables,
homeschooling does not do as well as you would think.
Alan
Herman Rubin
Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:07:58, "David Gossman"
><dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>> Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
>> news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-dKM3zUGiw0Ym@localhost...
>> > On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:57:19, Wally Williams <will...@ainet.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > With all the argument about school vouchers/choice, will
>> > > someone tell me what empirical evidence exists that a private
>> > > or parochial school education is better than that of a public
>> > > school?
................
>> > There is no data which would support the universal statement above
>> > (the best you could get would be a general trend), and there is NO
>> > data, based upon comparisons of statistically similar samples in both
>> > systems, which bears out this belief.
>> On the flip side there are studies performed by the Ill Math and Science
>> Academy showing that their students outperform students who do not attend
>> IMSA yet have all the other same demographic and intelligence background.
>> That would suggest that at least the better students in our schools can
>> perform significantly better than they do now.
>And in THIS I would agree. I agree wholeheartedly that we are
>shortchanging our best students, and wish that this would change.
We are shortchanging all students who are willing and able to
do more than the arbitrary "class" they are put in. This
will not change from the public schools; it cannot change as
long as those in control in the "educational" system believe
in age grouping.
>> Institutions like IMSA exist
>> in only a handful of states and are available to only a limited number of
>> students. Beyond the process of selecting the best students within certain
>> demographic criteria the cause of this improved performance is worth some
>> attention. I suspect it includes but is certainly not limited to:
>> 1. A residential environment where students have the opportunity to live and
>> socialize with their true peers.
It is not clear how necessary this is, although it is helpful.
>> 2. Committed teachers who are not members of a union and half of whom are
>> not even certified teachers (many have been college professors).
>This is your philosophical take on things, but unionizing is, imo,
>immaterial (especially given that "many college professors" are
>unionized). Further, uncertified teachers aren't, by definition,
>"good"; nor are former college professors necessarily "good" either.
No, but as someone who has some direct and indirect experience
with the process, the present certification procedure cannot
be made to do what it should. There are some who know their
subjects who do not do well in teaching those willing and able
to learn, but success in teaching the unwilling majority
should not be a criterion for selection to teach the willing
minority.
>> 3. An always changing and experimental program of accelerated learning not
>> only in math and science but the other disciplines as well.
Amen. Any ACADEMIC institution MUST try to teach the subject
without wasting the students' time. Those who claim that
children are not mentally capable should be eliminated from
the system. Unfortunately, we cannot do this from the present
staff of the public schools.
>> 4. A mentorship and self directed learning program for students to do
>> original research.
I am not convinced of this. One has to know enough to do
original research, or be quite lucky. On the other hand,
one can come up with untaught results and methods, even if
these are not only known but "standard". Good research,
not just development, consists in seeing the "obvious".
>> 5. An environment where better students are not put down by others, where
>> academic achievement is praised and rewarded, and where students show an
>> astounding level of tolerance for one another and their different cultural
>> backgrounds. Even the clicks
>Cliques?
>> (which still form) are highly tolerant of one another.
>> At least some of these characteristics would seem to be possible in a
>> private school environment and produce the same improvement in performance.
>No more so than in a public school with the proper community backing.
Community backing, of a type of community which is rare in
the US, and made even more rare by the hyperegalitarian
propaganda from the educationists. How is such an attitude
going to survive in a setup in which children are placed in
classes according to age? How is it going to thrive if they
are strongly urged, or even told, to play with the others
instead of studying?
>You're speaking of a PARTICULAR private school setting, not a general
>one. In my area, the public schools outperform the private schools
>given the same student demographics... AND... Provide a far more
>extensive education as well.
Can you imagine your school district putting in any of the
changes needed to provide a decent education?
>> Not being familiar with more than a small handful of private schools I
>> cannot further expound on this idea but would find it of interest to see
>> what the private school advocates in the group think of this.
>I've taught in both. The difference is in discipline and in the
>student body itself. The instructors in a public school in NY are
>generally superior to those in private schools. The course offerrings
>also tend to be superior. Discipline is better in private schools.
>Students are more serious and more motivated in private schools.
>There is virtually no difference in curriculum, teaching methods, etc,
>between the two. I suspect that things are similar elsewhere.
You have probably not taught in academic private schools;
these are very rare. The IMSA is actually too late to do
the job which should be done. I am not exaggerating when
I claim that those who are capable of a good college
education are capable of completing that in their teens.
I am not convinced of your ratings of the instructors or
the course offerings. If the course offerings in the
private schools are worse than those in the general run
of public schools, the results would be worse than they
seem to be.
Herman Rubin
>> In article <386759...@erols.com>,
>> Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >Bill Mechlenburg wrote:
..................
>> >> The objective should be to improve the quality of education - not to favor
>> >> private schools or put public schools out of business.
>> >If that is your objective, then support increased funding for those
>> >programs that exist; demand higherstandards through standardized
>> >testing.
>> The first thing which must be done is to make schools available
>> where students who are willing and able to learn to do so, not
>> hindered by the inability of other students or of the teachers.
>Herman, if public schools were allowed to use that criteria now, we'd
>have far fewer students andmuch better results. Regrettably, excluding
>all those who do not wish to learn is not a viable option.
I have never suggested excluding anyone. I have suggested
that they not all be expected to achieve the same results in
the same length of time, and that appropriate measures be
taken to allow each to try for as much as possible.
>> We need schools where subject matter learning will dominate;
>> the present schools MAY be fine for the jocks and learning
>> disabled, but those who can do better need the opportunity.
>Herman, I seem to recall a recent exchange we had on just that topic
>with regard to the policies at YOUR institution. I seem to recall that
>you presented a most weak arguement, as your school appears to engage in
>policies which are opposite to the ones you propose.
At a university, those who wish to learn more and better have
ways of approaching the problem. It is true that not enough
of the students know this, and many have had the desire for
this knocked out of them. But students who want stronger
programs can usually get them by going to the subject matter
scholars, NOT the administrators. The courses are separate,
which makes this possible.
>> Hold parents accountable for their children's failure to learn
>> >what has been taught.
>> What if the children are unable to do so? What if the teacher
>> fails to recognize that the child needs a different explanation?
>If the child has a tangible, identifiable condition that affects such
>learning, then there is special education.
The most common identifiable condition is lack of mental
ability; the schools rarely even test for this until the
later grades, for either the ones with little or much.
However, the need for an alternative explanation does
not fit in this category; understanding concepts often
requires more than one explanation for many even very
bright individuals.
There can also be usually untested physical problems.
These can even affect the extremely bright. One of
these is the physical development of muscles needed
for producing the material to be handed in, which
often does not go with the mental development.
If not, then get on his case
>to study harder.
Studying the same thing over and over rarely succeeds;
it needs to be done differently. There is no ONE way
to present something; what works for one may fail for
another, and vice versa.
>> Recognize that intelligence is inherited and that
>> >not every child can achieve at the same level and that equality in
>> >student achievement is never going to be attained.
>> This is one thing we agree upon. But you do not seem willing
>> to push it far enough. As children are different, they should
>> proceed at different rates, and even in different manners.
>> Also, if the child has learned something outside the school,
>> pass that child on. This can be accomplished by many means,
>> including just getting out of the way, but not by the present
>> heterogeneous classes or by age grouping, even with tracking.
>Herman, I have always been in favor of homogeneous grouping. Where you
>and I differ is that you want the standard for the elite to be the
>standard for all. You have been taken to task on that elitism many,
>many times, by myself and a host of others.
I have NEVER stated this. What I have stated is that there
should be no attempt to hold anyone back. I have also stated
that the "normal" ones could achieve more if the curriculum
had not been dumbed down for the slow ones; we have the old
curricula which show how much more was done in reading, which
was fairly universal.
>> >Only after you accept those can you have a more realistic view of
>> >education and its limitations.
>> To do these, you will need schools manned by people who have
>> not been through the present schools of education.
>Perhaps.
We certainly need them manned by people who do not put
age grouping over learning.
SUSUPPLY
> If you have a
>sympathetic understanding for the needs of children, then that, above
>all, will be the attribute that is most needed and which will make you
>an effective teacher
He reminds of just how sympathetic HE is:
>...teaching should be done in a
>satisfactory manner.
> Teachers have the responsibility to ply their
>trade in such a manner.
>
>But once they ply their trade in a satisfactory manner, the fault for
>not learning must lie elsewhere.
Of course we are still begging the question of just WHO gets to decide what is
"a satisfactory manner". So let's have a little more on that from the poor
(again from Michael W. Lynch's, article in Reason Magazine):
<< Good, relatively low-cost private schools exist that will welcome former
public school students and work to bring them up to grade level. And where
money is available, myriad organizations will found new schools. Roughly one
third of D.C.'s charter schools are specialized schools designed to meet the
needs of the very students the public schools blame for their failures.
[Catch that Alan?]
<< That is what Virginia Walden has discovered. Walden is executive director of
D.C. Parents for School Choice, located in the basement of an apartment
building four blocks from the headquarters of the National Education
Association. She stumbled upon school choice when her son William started to
get in trouble at Roosevelt High School. "As soon as he started going there he
became a terror," says Walden. "He said if he did well in school he would get
labeled `smart' and harassed." When he brought home all F's without warning,
Walden knew she had to get him out. "Two teachers didn't even know his name,"
says an exasperated Walden, who was active in the school's PTA. A neighbor
offered to help send William to Archbishop Carroll, a Catholic high school. "We
saw an improvement right away," she says.
<< Walden decided to be the same kind of good neighbor to other D.C. parents in
need. "If I have an education and parents who can support me, and I feel backed
up against a wall," she says, "then what about other parents?" She is an
education broker for low-income D.C. parents, matching families to schools. "We
have become a one-stop issue shop for poor parents," says Walden, a warm woman
whose deep laugh serves her well in her work with the public.
<< Having served more than 1,000 parents since 1998, she says the issues are
simple: quality of education, safety, and responsiveness. "The biggest
complaint we get is that traditional public education doesn't encourage parents
to be part of their kids' education--and they don't say it that nicely," says
Walden.
[I wonder what she would have to say about Alan?]
<< In 1997…the Republican-led Congress was attempting to assist her. It
eventually passed the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act,
which dedicated $7 million in new government money for D.C., to be used for
$3,200 scholarships for 1,800 students. Democrats argued that the vouchers were
unconstitutional, that the money wouldn't help enough children, and that it
would build a new bureaucracy. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who led a
filibuster, derided the bill as a "foolish ideological experiment." D.C.
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city's nonvoting representative in
Congress, provided cover for the anti-scholarship forces, assuring her
colleagues that the people of D.C. didn't want "vouchers imposed on the
District of Columbia." President Clinton agreed and vetoed the bill in May
1998.
<< At the same time that Democrats were working to block federal funds for
low-income children, private philanthropists were focusing on scholarships as a
means to provide parents with opportunity. Private scholarship programs, which
typically fund about half the tuition of low-cost private schools, were already
operating in 30 cities, serving 23,625 kids with more than 300,000 on waiting
lists. At the time, the Washington Scholarship Fund was supporting 239 D.C.
students.
<< In 1997, financier Theodore Forstmann and Wal-Mart heir John Walton decided
to pump some liquidity into the D.C. private school market. Each promised to
contribute $1 million a year for three years to the scholarship fund, enabling
it to provide 1,000 more scholarships, each worth 30 percent to 60 percent of
tuition, up to a cap of $1,700. More than 7,600 D.C. families applied.
<< Shocked, then heartened, by the demand, Forstmann and Walton decided to take
the program national. They set up the Children's Scholarship Fund, donating $50
million each and announcing their intention to raise more. The demand was
overwhelming. In 1998, more than 1.25 million families applied for 40,000
scholarships. In Baltimore, 44 percent of eligible students applied. One-third
of the eligible students in Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, and New
Orleans also wanted in.
[snip]
<< A 1997 report from the D.C. Control Board on the city's schools concluded
that "the longer a student stays in the District's public school system, the
less likely they are to succeed." On the Stanford 9 Achievement Test, one in
three D.C. fourth graders scored "below basic" on reading. One in two
graduating seniors did. On math, three in ten fourth grade students and three
in four seniors scored "below basic."
<< Private and charter school principals report that the longer students stay
in government schools, the longer it takes them to catch up to grade level, if
they ever do. Nelson Smith, executive director of the D.C. Public Charter
School Board, says that many charter school principals were shocked at how far
behind their kids were. One high school, which started with a single
ninth-grade class, held back three-fourths of its entering class.
<< Voucher opponents love to point out that government schools must take
everyone, while private schools are able to set standards, without any
government oversight, and select their students. As D.C. Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton claimed on the floor of the House, "Choice, therefore, will not
rest with the parents but with the religious and private schools that will
apply their own standards to the admission and retention of each child."
<< A related argument charges that few private schools exist in the price range
of the vouchers, and the ones that do are of poor quality. Said Rep. Albert
Wynn (D-Md.) on the House floor: "This notion that there is going to be this
great choice for families is really a mistake. It really is a fraud. They are
not going to have the choice to go to Sidwell Friends or St. Albans and the
great private schools."
<< Such arguments are infuriating to parents of public school students,
especially in the District of Columbia, where one in 10 students is deemed in
need of special education. For roughly 1,000 of these students, the D.C.
government schools do offer something--a gold-plated government-funded voucher
to a private institution. The institutions to which the district sends its
special-ed students are quite expensive. In 1997, the last year for which the
D.C. schools provide data, it spent $21 million to send 1,079 students to
private institutions--in effect, a $19,500 voucher. That same year, Democrats
in Congress claimed that $7 million in scholarship funds would destroy
government schools. >>
Perhaps Alan would like to enlighten us about the 10th Amendment implications
in the immediately above?
Patrick
David Gossman
Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:84d00m$4g...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
>
> >> 4. A mentorship and self directed learning program for students to do
> >> original research.
>
> I am not convinced of this. One has to know enough to do
> original research, or be quite lucky. On the other hand,
> one can come up with untaught results and methods, even if
> these are not only known but "standard". Good research,
> not just development, consists in seeing the "obvious".
>
But the process of doing research is not something that is taught. That is
where mentorships and research at this level play a role. Further, these
students do original research that gets published. I know my own daughter,
while 17 and in her first year of college, did a research project in
quantitative genetics that is soon to be published. Check
http://www.imsa.edu/edu/sir/mentorship/mentees.html to look at the types of
research these kids do while still in high school. These students enter IMSA
with higher SAT scores than most college freshman.
>
> You have probably not taught in academic private schools;
> these are very rare. The IMSA is actually too late to do
> the job which should be done. I am not exaggerating when
> I claim that those who are capable of a good college
> education are capable of completing that in their teens.
>
I agree that these kids are capable of that and with better preparation
could be doing it earlier. That is why we home school now. At the same time
my eldest entered college from IMSA at the age of 16 with 1.5 years of
college credit in hand. From that perspective they are already meeting a
good deal of what we both think is possible. (And doing it without the
preparation that we both would like to see. The first year at IMSA is shock
therapy for many of these kids.)
David Gossman
Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3869FC...@erols.com...
> ( previous post snipped-follow thread )
>
> > > Teaching is not some magical thing that is mysterious. It's quite
easy
> > > to be a decent teacher and teach a given curriculum in a manner in
which
> > > the kids can learn it. The problem, and the major problem, is that
> > > parents do not want to face the reality that their kids don't do as
well
> > > as they would like because either their kids don't put in enough time,
> > > or their inherited intellectual abilities limit that achievement. The
> > > issues or "choice" and "teaching method" are smokescreens for failure
to
> > > take a good hard look at themselves and come to grips with the real
> > > reason for differences in student achievement. Those methods you tout
> > > are only methods which foster the belief that something else, other
than
> > > personal attributes is the cause for failure.
> > >
> > > Until you can document that the teaching in a school is
unsatisfactory,
> > > that the curriculum is not being taught and taught according to the
> > > stated level of difficulty, then you have no argument. And you also
> > > have no shame for blaming others what in reality are deficiencies
> > > inherent in yourself. Hardly demonstrative of integrity.
> > >
> > You were the one that tried to shift responsibility without the needed
level
> > of authority.
>
> Not true, it was you and others of your ilk that made the assertion that
> schools were not doing their jobs, and touted alternatives to public
> education. As such the burden of proof is on you and your ilk. I
> clearly state that in my challenge above. I take the negative to your
> assertions. My responsibility in debate given that position, is to
> refute yours. I did that above. First, demonstrate that schools are
> not doing their stated jobs. And remember; student achievement does not
> necessarily indicate that.
I responded to your statement "Hold parents accountable for their children's
failure to learn what has been taught." The schools are not doing their jobs
by virtue of their very design including but not limited to age segregation
and curriculum.
>
> This is a standard technique, give someone the responsibility
> > but not the authority to get the job done. You want to put parents with
kids
> > in the ps system in that position in order to avoid any responsibility
on
> > the part of the teacher.
>
> Nonsense. I clearly indicate that teaching should be done in a
> satisfactory manner. Teachers have the responsibility to ply their
> trade in such a manner.
Then why "Hold parents accountable for their children's failure to learn
what has been taught."? The teachers are the ones setting the standards, the
curriculum, the homework and giving the grades. All the parent has control
over is whether or not kids do their homework. Are you suggesting that the
problem with our educational system lies in kids not doing their homework?
If that is the case then why are the teachers promoting the kids to the next
grade. (See how easy it is to show your silly assertion is just that?)
>
> But once they ply their trade in a satisfactory manner, the fault for
> not learning must lie elsewhere.
And you think that they are now plying their trade in a satisfactory manner.
I have pointed out in many posts as have others exactly how the system is
failing many of our kids. You may try to shift the blame to the system that
teachers are working within but to try to shift it to the parents is down
right silly.
>
> As for my personal situation I home school so you
> > can hardly accuse me of "deficiencies inherent in myself". Add to that
an 18
> > year old daughter who is 3 hours from being a senior in college and has
a
> > 4.0.
>
> I applaud your daughter's success, and remind you that one example does
> not permit you to generalize. There are considerably more students in
> this country than your daughter, and the mass population will determine
> what we can generalize; not the experiences of your daughter.
Which was not the purpose of my example but rather to refute your suggestion
that there are "deficiencies inherent in yourself". Nice try to twist it
around but that simply shows that you were wrong to make such a personal
accusation and must now resort to such comical tactics to clear yourself.
>
> And for the record, the homeschool population generally falls into the
> upper levels of inherited intelligence. Given what we know about
> learning, it is quite likely that such a population will succeed in
> whatever environment is provided. For your information, I am currently
> involved in a study which seeks to determine whether a homeschooled
> cohort or a schooled cohort performs in a superior manner when the
> variables of curriculum and intelligence are common to both.
> Preliminary results appear to indicate that for superior students, the
> school experience produces better results. But the results are
> preliminary and may not be statistically valid, due to sample size.
>
> Just to let you know that when you control ALL the variables,
> homeschooling does not do as well as you would think.
>
I know that I am doing better than the schools could do. Remember my eldest
went through the schools so I have a basis for comparison. I also know that
starting at age seven my middle child was placed a year ahead when we did
enroll her for nine weeks. Please do your study, but if you didn't start out
with a large enough population to get statistically meaningful results in
the first place it sounds like the design was flawed. Meanwhile you should
be aware that there are some of us who have worked within the system to be
well aware of the flaws. You can not hide them from us or try to shift the
blame. While I certainly feel that parents should in general be more
involved in their children's education I know that so long as the government
run system asserts the authority then it is also taking on the
responsibility. That is basic logic that you can not avoid.
David Gossman
generalize. Since all you have done is provide single examples you certainly
have not refuted the general points that had originally been made. A counter
example may be a "proof" of something being false in math but we all know
that social systems always have exceptions. If it is your contention that
schools should be considered an exception to the general rule that private
enterprise and competition is more efficient than government run and managed
monopolies you have a long way to go.
m_...@my-deja.com
Neil Nelson wrote in message <84dqu2$jug$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>In article <84dd2s$inr$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>
> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
>
> > And for the record, the homeschool population generally falls
into
> > the upper levels of inherited intelligence.
Where did you hear this? Are you using inherited intelligence as
a surrogate for something else?
> > Given what we know about
> > learning, it is quite likely that such a population will succeed
in
> > whatever environment is provided.
I'm sure that we have differing definitions of succeed.
> > For your information, I am cur-
> > rently involved in a study which seeks to determine whether
a
> > homeschooled cohort or a schooled cohort performs in a superior
man-
> > ner when the variables of curriculum and intelligence are common
to
> > both.
This doesn't sound like an interesting comparison. Home schoolers
generally have a lot more freedom to pick and choose their curricular
materials. For a practical comparison, you should choose what the
school offers against what a home school can choose. If two
fifth-grades are doing calculus and college-level physics, then
giving the schooled child fifth-grade textbooks would certainly
put him at a disadvantage. But this more likely reflects the real
world.
> Preliminary results appear to indicate that for superior stu-
> > dents, the school experience produces better results. But the
re-
> > sults are preliminary and may not be statistically valid, due
to
> > sample size.
>
> > Just to let you know that when you control ALL the
variables,
> > homeschooling does not do as well as you would think.
But why do you control curriculum? This is not a real-world control.
David's thesis snipped as I generally agree with what he wrote.
> The basic debate here seems to be public-school vs. home-school.
And
> it would seem that the two presented positions could be
simultaenously
> held without contradiction; i.e., whatever the result of Alan's
study
> that currently indicates against home-school, David may hold that
for
> his individual case that home-school is still superior, or that
the
> study is biased as, e.g., in what the definition of `home-school'
is,
> in that weakening the definition from, say, David's superior
example
> allows cases to be admitted to Alan's study that David would not
re-
> gard as home-school. But then from Alan's position, public-school
does
> not have the convenience of choosing individual cases to vary the
com-
> mon definition of what a public-school is. I doubt David is
arguing
> that we should elminate public-school and have only home-school,
but
> that public-school will still be required, whatever its faults,
in
> those cases in which home-school is not available. We are mixing
our
> several objectives that when set alone define different
solution
> paths. I.e., there are national/social/community educational
objec-
> tives and there are personal/individual educational objectives.
>
> Assuming that David's home-school case can be objectively measured
as
> superior, the result is that the overall education of all students
is
> increased by that increment (David's home-school superioir result)
and
> assuming no per-student reduction in effort and resources for the
re-
> mainder of the students. And then to a large degree the functions
of
> home-school are very similar, if not the same, as those functions
that
> would be called homework and parent involvement in a public
education
> process. I.e., we do not need to posit a necessary contest of
public-
> school vs. home-school but could instead maximize the
opportunities
> and resources of both into a more effective synthesis.
Nicely put.
> But my inquiry is what is the utility of education in its several
por-
> tions: mathematics, English, social-studies, and so on, so that
our
> education efforts can be apportioned according to objective
measures
> of the utilities of the portions? E.g., we would all likely
agree
> there is a significant utiilty for grade-school mathematics
up
> through, say, algebra resulting in a general educational
requirement
> that when met we say this student is educated. But as there is a
large
> number of competing requirements and a limited amount of resources,
it
> would be desirable to know to what eventual, general utility, say,
the
> required mathematics obtains with respect to other subjects and
com-
> peting uses of those resources applied to education.
There are millions of opinions about what you're talking about and
this is part of the reason why we have local control of education in
the United States. Parents can lobby the teacher, principal,
superintendent or the school board for what they want and the resulting
compromise between these folks and the members of the community decide
what the priorities are and what is taught.
Those of us that work in certain math-related fields can see the
value of mathematics at work from the point of view of being able
to earn a living to provide for a family. I believe that this view
is fairly rare in the general population. Most people outside of
work cannot make the connection between math and income.
Are the others important? I think so but I'm sure that you could
find as many opinions as to the order and rank as there are parents.
> Commonly, and as in the quote, the issue is how well some
assumed
> standard educational requirements are met. Whereas my question is:
how
> do we determine the standard educational requirements? I.e.,
although
> this is an extreme example, if we did not determine the standards
in
> an effective manner we could have well-educated and uneducated
people
> without any subsequent discernable difference in their lives
except
> that resources would have been employed to obtain educated people
that
> might have been better employed elsewhere.
Everything is a guess. What's hot today may be dead tomorrow. I recall
working in a manufacturing company that employed a lot of accountants
and bookkeepers to keep track of things. Guess what happened when the
spreadsheet appeared? You didn't need a whole bunch of people working
on large desks with huge grids of paper recalculating minor changes.
> E.g., when I was in grade-
> school, I learned long division, fractions, and many
computational
> routines for which I now use a calculator. When I learned those
rou-
> tines, there was a good reason to learn them because no one
expected
> calculators and computers to be so conveniently available as they
are
> now. But now it is faster and more accurate to use these
calculators,
> and the time we spend on teaching students to do what cheap
calcula-
> tors can do might be better spent on teaching students how to
use
> those calculators more effectively, how to solve the application
prob-
> lem as against how to compute the details of the application problem.
I think that learning how to do long division has some utility besides
learning how to divide by hand. It is the first look that kids get at
a somewhat complicated algorithm that requires patience and execution
to get correct. Doing something more than a one-liner helps to prepare
you for doing longer things such as multistep problems, proofs, etc.
There are many times when other approaches are faster than using a
calculator or computer. Especially when the computer requires a boot.
Neil Nelson
Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
> And for the record, the homeschool population generally falls into
> the upper levels of inherited intelligence. Given what we know about
> learning, it is quite likely that such a population will succeed in
> whatever environment is provided. For your information, I am cur-
> rently involved in a study which seeks to determine whether a
> homeschooled cohort or a schooled cohort performs in a superior man-
> ner when the variables of curriculum and intelligence are common to
> both. Preliminary results appear to indicate that for superior stu-
> dents, the school experience produces better results. But the re-
> sults are preliminary and may not be statistically valid, due to
> sample size.
> Just to let you know that when you control ALL the variables,
> homeschooling does not do as well as you would think.
David Gossman wrote:
< I know that I am doing better than the schools could do. Remember my
< eldest went through the schools so I have a basis for comparison. I
< also know that starting at age seven my middle child was placed a
< year ahead when we did enroll her for nine weeks. Please do your
< study, but if you didn't start out with a large enough population to
< get statistically meaningful results in the first place it sounds
< like the design was flawed. Meanwhile you should be aware that there
< are some of us who have worked within the system to be well aware of
< the flaws. You can not hide them from us or try to shift the blame.
< While I certainly feel that parents should in general be more in-
< volved in their children's education I know that so long as the gov-
< ernment run system asserts the authority then it is also taking on
< the responsibility. That is basic logic that you can not avoid.
The basic debate here seems to be public-school vs. home-school. And
But my inquiry is what is the utility of education in its several por-
tions: mathematics, English, social-studies, and so on, so that our
education efforts can be apportioned according to objective measures
of the utilities of the portions? E.g., we would all likely agree
there is a significant utiilty for grade-school mathematics up
through, say, algebra resulting in a general educational requirement
that when met we say this student is educated. But as there is a large
number of competing requirements and a limited amount of resources, it
would be desirable to know to what eventual, general utility, say, the
required mathematics obtains with respect to other subjects and com-
peting uses of those resources applied to education.
Commonly, and as in the quote, the issue is how well some assumed
standard educational requirements are met. Whereas my question is: how
do we determine the standard educational requirements? I.e., although
this is an extreme example, if we did not determine the standards in
an effective manner we could have well-educated and uneducated people
without any subsequent discernable difference in their lives except
that resources would have been employed to obtain educated people that
might have been better employed elsewhere. E.g., when I was in grade-
school, I learned long division, fractions, and many computational
routines for which I now use a calculator. When I learned those rou-
tines, there was a good reason to learn them because no one expected
calculators and computers to be so conveniently available as they are
now. But now it is faster and more accurate to use these calculators,
and the time we spend on teaching students to do what cheap calcula-
tors can do might be better spent on teaching students how to use
those calculators more effectively, how to solve the application prob-
lem as against how to compute the details of the application problem.
Neil Nelson n_ne...@ix.netcom.com
David Gossman
Neil Nelson <n_ne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:84dqu2>
In some states and districts partial home schooling is an option. It is
difficult to understand why the teacher's union seems to oppose such an
approach.
>
> But my inquiry is what is the utility of education in its several por-
> tions: mathematics, English, social-studies, and so on, so that our
> education efforts can be apportioned according to objective measures
> of the utilities of the portions? E.g., we would all likely agree
> there is a significant utiilty for grade-school mathematics up
> through, say, algebra resulting in a general educational requirement
> that when met we say this student is educated. But as there is a large
> number of competing requirements and a limited amount of resources, it
> would be desirable to know to what eventual, general utility, say, the
> required mathematics obtains with respect to other subjects and com-
> peting uses of those resources applied to education.
Many of us hold the opinion that far less is taught than could be. I would
suggest addressing that issue before trying to prioritize what is taught. As
an example our local high school, when I was on the school board, nearly
doubled the graduation requirements and went to block scheduling. We also
eliminated study halls. Many doubters said we were dumping to much on the
students, yet for two years afterwards we saw steadily increasing numbers of
students on the honor roll and eliminated the prior tendency for the vast
majority of the honor roll to be girls. It took a priority of academics by
the administrators, something that is not real popular among some students
and parents.
>
> Commonly, and as in the quote, the issue is how well some assumed
> standard educational requirements are met. Whereas my question is: how
> do we determine the standard educational requirements? I.e., although
> this is an extreme example, if we did not determine the standards in
> an effective manner we could have well-educated and uneducated people
> without any subsequent discernable difference in their lives except
> that resources would have been employed to obtain educated people that
> might have been better employed elsewhere. E.g., when I was in grade-
> school, I learned long division, fractions, and many computational
> routines for which I now use a calculator. When I learned those rou-
> tines, there was a good reason to learn them because no one expected
> calculators and computers to be so conveniently available as they are
> now. But now it is faster and more accurate to use these calculators,
> and the time we spend on teaching students to do what cheap calcula-
> tors can do might be better spent on teaching students how to use
> those calculators more effectively, how to solve the application prob-
> lem as against how to compute the details of the application problem.
>
Again I must disagree with your specific example. The mental exercise of
doing simple arithmetic calculations is a fundamental thinking process that
must be developed and exercised prior to or along with the development of
more complex solving problem techniques. On the flip side teaching students
to use calculators instead of using a slide rule is certainly warranted.
Actually I have no problem with the idea that public schools are needed at
all. I continue to support them in a number of ways. My problem is with
those who try to shift the blame for problems with the system away from the
system and on to the parents or with those who try to deny that there is any
sort of problem. If the public schools continue down the path they are going
we will become a two tiered society. Those who home school or send kids to
quality private schools vs those left in the public schools. Because those
left in the ps system will generally not have the active parents the ps will
suffer even more as support for funding, both taxes and the "extras" that
private groups so often provide will dry up. The ps system desperately needs
a wake up call to get them moving. Vouchers and other forms of competition
appear to be a reasonable way of doing just that. Problem is that those
inside the system, like any good bureaucrat, are fighting to maintain the
status quo. That is where these debates ultimately arise from.
DillyTaunt
>I've taught in both. The difference is in discipline and
>in the student body itself. The instructors in a public
>school in NY are generally superior to those in private
>schools. The course offerrings also tend to be superior.
>Discipline is better in private schools. Students are more
>serious and more motivated in private schools. There is
>virtually no difference in curriculum, teaching methods,
>etc, between the two. I suspect that things are similar
>elsewhere.
Pursuing a lead from Alan, I've been reading little
squibs of essays from Diane Ravitch. I thought this
data of hers on the difference between private and
public schools was interesting. (Not HELPFUL, mind.
How would one control for it? But interesting.)
By the way, I have no knowledge of the source of Ravitch's
statistics. I make no claim for their validity. If you
trust her, you trust the data, and if not... no problem.
Hell, she worked in the DeptEd for a politician.
Automatically makes her credibility suspect, doesn't it? :)
http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue54/item1044.asp
>Excerpted from a October 1, 1996
>Wall Street Journal
>editorial by Diane Ravitch.
>
>Who takes algebra? In public high schools, algebra II is
>studied by 65% of students whose parents have a college
>degree, but only 43% of students whose parents lack a
>college degree. In Catholic schools, on the other hand,
>algebra II is studied by 62% of students whose parents
>have a college degree, and 65% of students whose parents
>do not have a college degree.
>
>Who takes geometry? In public schools, 84% of students
>whose parents have a college degree, but only 59% of those
>whose parents do not. In Catholic schools, geometry is
>studied by 91% of students whose parents have a college
>degree, and 92% of students whose parents do not.
>
>Who takes trigonometry? In public schools, 28% of students
>whose parents have a college degree, and 14% of students
>whose parents do not. In Catholic schools, trigonometry is
>studied by 42% of students whose parents have a college
>degree, and 34% of those whose parents do not.
>
>The greater academic demands on students in Catholic
>schools produce higher academic achievement for those who
>need it most.
Ron McDermott
<dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
> Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
> news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-oqTrPVxdmGGu@localhost...
> > On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:07:58, "David Gossman"
> > <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On the flip side there are studies performed by the Ill Math and Science
> > > Academy showing that their students outperform students who do not
> > > attend IMSA yet have all the other same demographic and intelligence
> > > background. That would suggest that at least the better students in
> > > our schools can perform significantly better than they do now.
> >
> > And in THIS I would agree. I agree wholeheartedly that we are
> > shortchanging our best students, and wish that this would change.
>
> How, given the current philosophy of public education?
Change it; the current philosophy wasn't handed down on stone tablets
1000 years ago!
> > > 2. Committed teachers who are not members of a union and half of whom
> > > are not even certified teachers (many have been college professors).
> >
> > This is your philosophical take on things, but unionizing is, imo,
> > immaterial (especially given that "many college professors" are
> > unionized). Further, uncertified teachers aren't, by definition,
> > "good"; nor are former college professors necessarily "good" either.
>
> But the point is that certifications and unions are clearly not necessary.
I disagree with you and so do many others; personal philosophy.
> Then one must ask if they are a benefit or a hinderance to improving schools
> that need improving. My first hand experience provides a clear answer - not
> a "philosophical take".
As does everyone else's "first hand knowledge", some of which
disagrees with yours.
> > > At least some of these characteristics would seem to be possible in a
> > > private school environment and produce the same improvement in
> > > performance.
> >
> > No more so than in a public school with the proper community backing.
> > You're speaking of a PARTICULAR private school setting, not a general
> > one. In my area, the public schools outperform the private schools
> > given the same student demographics... AND... Provide a far more
> > extensive education as well.
>
> You missed the point. See the "seem possible"? Certainly the current
> circumstances of funding and institutional development would only produce
> this sort of environment at about the same percentage level that it is found
> in the public schools, ie almost zero.
First of all, this is in response to the assinine claim (not yours)
that entering a private school confers a 50 to 105 point improvement
on the SATs. So, no, it is no more "possible" in a private school
than in a public school, and since some public schools outperform some
private schools (many outperform ALL in my area), the premise is
flawed to begin with.
> > > Not being familiar with more than a small handful of private schools I
> > > cannot further expound on this idea but would find it of interest to see
> > > what the private school advocates in the group think of this.
> >
> > I've taught in both. The difference is in discipline and in the
> > student body itself. The instructors in a public school in NY are
> > generally superior to those in private schools. The course offerrings
> > also tend to be superior. Discipline is better in private schools.
> > Students are more serious and more motivated in private schools.
> > There is virtually no difference in curriculum, teaching methods, etc,
> > between the two. I suspect that things are similar elsewhere.
>
> Sounds like the clear difference that pushes against private schools in your
> experience is the quality of the teachers.
That's one of the things; in the larger public schools, the higher
level courses go way beyond what the private schools can offer. The
other issue is that, on average, the public school teachers are better
trained in their areas (you won't find, for example, any physics
majors teaching physics at private schools in my area unless it
happens to be a nun or brother).
> Care to reflect on how vouchers would impact that?
I can't see any benefit whatsoever.
> How could "course offerings also tend to be superior" if
> there is "no difference in curriculum"?
"Course" and "curriculum" don't mean the same thing. Where COURSES
are the same, curriculum is also the same (NY regents is the
standard). When comparing courses, one doesn't find AP sciences, for
example, in private schools locally.
Ron McDermott
> Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> asked:
Dilly wrote:
> Quite frankly, from a layman's dilettantish viewpoint, it
> ain't whether the school is public or private as much as
> whether the student-body-on-site is over or under 400.
> LARGE schools seem, to me, to produce crappy results
> regardless of funding.
LARGE schools also tend to be URBAN schools, so one has to wonder
whether the "crappy results" are educationally related, or
demographically related.
> >In virtually every category of identifiable indicators of
> >academic success (income level, two-parent families,
> >parental education level, racial makeup, and on and on),
> >private school students, on average, possess positive
> >indicators to a much greater extent than do public school
> >students.
>
> Well... yeah. Mostly. But mostly that data is about schools
> supported by the sufficiently affluent. A few voucher
> experiments (undertaken over great opposition) try to
> control the variables you mention -- often using the
> lottery-slotting techniques _I_ mention. Would you agree
> that several such experiments in various states and
> districts and venues are necessary before we can say, one
> way or the other? OR do you have divine inspiration such
> that no experiments are necessary?
Note: This is not about MY point of view, but about the assinine
claim that entering a private school confers a 50 to 105 point
increase in SAT score. THAT is unsupportable. The naive claim that
private schools do a "better" job is similarly unsupported when one
considers populations which are demographically comparable. Since I
consider vouchers, as envisioned, to be injurious to education in
general, I oppose such "experiments". I'd be happy to see public
schools which were allowed to operate like private schools, however
(charter schools).
> I notice Ron didn't mention campus size. Would you agree,
> sir, that campus size (students per facility) is an
> "identifiable indicator of academic success"?
I'm not sure that it is. It SEEMS to be, but this involves, once
again, comparisons between populations which are not demographically
comparable in the FIRST place! Large schools tend to be urban and
high minority populated, so there are simply too many other factors
involved to make such a blanket statement. I'll say this much; the
high school in my district has a wonderful reputation and turns out
high quality graduates - It is the 10th largest high school in NY (and
is only 10-12th grade!), and is 50% minority. In this instance, the
trend isn't borne out.
> Large schools and school systems tend to have another
> problem so far unaddressed here. Cost-inefficiency.
A claim absent any real proof.
> Leaving aside for the moment whether (small) private
> schools are "Better" in teaching reading, writing, and
> 'rithmetic... It is often (not always) true that privately
> funded schools spend less-per-student to achieve their
> results (whatever those are.)
Are you sure this reflects actual COSTS, or merely tuition? And we're
throwing out the religious institutions (which are subsidized and in
which at least some of the staff work virtually for nothing) since
they have little or nothing in common with the costs of operating a
public school? And we're not including private schools which do not
teach special ed, of course, because everyone knows that special ed
inflates apparent average costs? Or are we ignoring all that in
making this comparison?
> What keeps large public schools from breaking themselves
> up into smaller organizations?
Nothing other than needing more facilities, more staff, etc, which
would RAISE costs not lower them...
Ron McDermott
> In article <87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-oqTrPVxdmGGu@localhost>,
> rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> > I've taught in both. The difference is in discipline and in the
> > student body itself. The instructors in a public school in NY are
> > generally superior to those in private schools. The course offerrings
> > also tend to be superior. Discipline is better in private schools.
> > Students are more serious and more motivated in private schools.
> > There is virtually no difference in curriculum, teaching methods, etc,
> > between the two. I suspect that things are similar elsewhere.
>
> Excluding New York City's specialized high schools (Bronx Science,
> Stuyvesant, etc.), your statement -- assuming you're including high
> schools -- is way off from the mainstream.
You consider NYC "mainstream"? I don't consider anything ABOUT NYC to
be "mainstream". What about all the rest of NY?
> This could be because your
> experience is limited to a few specific schools.
I'm familiar with close to 2 dozen schools locally.
> I live in NJ (educated in NYC public schools);
Long enough ago that your recollections are not reflective of current
conditions?
> after our experiences with the public schools in our district over the
> past 15 years, my younger daughter,with our full support and
> encouragement, left the system and entered a private HS (9th grade).
So I count your familiarity with school districts at two if we exclude
your own experience in NYC.
> I agree or disagree on your following specific points:
>
> 1. Superiority of instructors - this is very subjective, but
> "superiority" -- no matter how you define it -- varies greatly from
> teacher to teacher, school to school, etc. The only difference is in
> cases of "inferior" instructors -- private schools can dismiss them
> easier than public schools.
But they also GET more of them because of the payscale. I agree;
subjective. I'm speaking of my area, with which I am VERY familiar.
> 2. Discipline - Generally, I agree with you. However, there are also
> disciplinary motivators in private schools such as encampusment and
> even expulsion for infractions often ignored or treated lightly in
> public schools. Again, discipline incidents and policies vary greatly
> from school to school.
I think it'd be hard to disagree on this point.
> 3. Course offerings - Your statement couldn't be further from reality
> and I'll back that up with the following news article from yesterday's
> Trenton Times: http://www.nj.com/mercer/times/stories/12-27-
> VURBEYVB.html
> The district in this article has many more course offerings than mine
> (adjoining) -- and our district is much larger, with 3 high schools to
> their one. Public schools in my district shortchange anyone above
> average -- unless you're above average in everything, where you're
> classified as "gifted and talented" and get some recognition (but not a
> challenging education). In my daughter's private school, she was
> placed in honors English, a mix of 9th and 10th graders -- and it does
> provide that extra help in verbal skills needed for the SATs.
> Regarding enrichment, our local schools provide primarily high
> competition team sports. My daughter is active in the equestrian
> program, and is in several school clubs, including the astrology club
> which meets at 9:30 PM.
So my divorce from reality is established by you citing a couple
districts local to you? But my citing of a couple dozen local to me
doesn't count? Why?
> 4. Curriculum/teaching methods: Admittingly, a single-sex boarding
> school is not for everybody. 18 months ago, my daughter thought such
> places existed for punishment; subsequent research, visiting schools,
> etc. changed everybody's opinions. The academic aspects of most
> independent schools are unparalleled in public schools.
Not the case in my area, thus an incorrect generalization.
> Small class
> sizes are just one aspect that enable instructors to teach more
> efficiently. Academic support and study time is standardized, which
> increases student accountability. If the class cooperates, the teacher
> might take them out for pizza - just like that. There is no age
> barrier; many middle school girls start HS level foreign language in
> 7th grade and my daughter's French 2 class has girls spanning 3 grades.
My daughter is in 9th grade and has in two years of foreign languages.
We offer spanish, french, german, and latin.
> I'll end with this example -- in 8th grade, my daughter was in a
> science class that used an outdated computer-dominated syllabus. She
> challenged the teacher with more current information she read in the
> newspapers and science magazines. But the computer said she was wrong,
> so she was wrong. She lost interest, motivation, etc. When we met our
> daughter's current teachers during parents' weekend, we questioned a
> report card comment by her French teacher that she didn't participate
> enough in class. We were surprised and asked our daughter why, and she
> dsaid she always raised her hand, but wasn't called on. When we met
> the teacher, we raised this issue, and was told there was an
> expectation to just chime in. We had to remind the teacher that our
> daughter just came out of an NJ public school, and would get
> disciplined for talking out of turn if she did that.
This isn't curriculum; it is class management/teaching technique, and
every teacher is different. I conduct my classes as a dialogue most
of the time, so I can't see too much difference in my technique versus
the one you cite. Again, in general, what goes on in the classrooms
is virtually the same with the exception of specialized schools,
personal style, and/or with respect to discipline.
David Gossman
Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-OfEoTLwnHkzV@localhost...
> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 04:00:06, "David Gossman"
> <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
> > news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-oqTrPVxdmGGu@localhost...
> > > On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:07:58, "David Gossman"
> > > <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On the flip side there are studies performed by the Ill Math and
Science
> > > > Academy showing that their students outperform students who do not
> > > > attend IMSA yet have all the other same demographic and intelligence
> > > > background. That would suggest that at least the better students in
> > > > our schools can perform significantly better than they do now.
> > >
> > > And in THIS I would agree. I agree wholeheartedly that we are
> > > shortchanging our best students, and wish that this would change.
> >
> > How, given the current philosophy of public education?
>
> Change it; the current philosophy wasn't handed down on stone tablets
> 1000 years ago!
Let's try this again. How are you going to change something that has as a
built in philosophy a resistance to change.
>
> > > > 2. Committed teachers who are not members of a union and half of
whom
> > > > are not even certified teachers (many have been college
professors).
> > >
> > > This is your philosophical take on things, but unionizing is, imo,
> > > immaterial (especially given that "many college professors" are
> > > unionized). Further, uncertified teachers aren't, by definition,
> > > "good"; nor are former college professors necessarily "good" either.
> >
> > But the point is that certifications and unions are clearly not
necessary.
>
> I disagree with you and so do many others; personal philosophy.
Another thread described the teacher's "unions" in Texas so I guess it
depends on what you define a union as.
>
> > Then one must ask if they are a benefit or a hinderance to improving
schools
> > that need improving. My first hand experience provides a clear answer -
not
> > a "philosophical take".
>
> As does everyone else's "first hand knowledge", some of which
> disagrees with yours.
You haven't presented it.
>
> > > > At least some of these characteristics would seem to be possible in
a
> > > > private school environment and produce the same improvement in
> > > > performance.
> > >
> > > No more so than in a public school with the proper community backing.
> > > You're speaking of a PARTICULAR private school setting, not a general
> > > one. In my area, the public schools outperform the private schools
> > > given the same student demographics... AND... Provide a far more
> > > extensive education as well.
> >
> > You missed the point. See the "seem possible"? Certainly the current
> > circumstances of funding and institutional development would only
produce
> > this sort of environment at about the same percentage level that it is
found
> > in the public schools, ie almost zero.
>
> First of all, this is in response to the assinine claim (not yours)
> that entering a private school confers a 50 to 105 point improvement
> on the SATs. So, no, it is no more "possible" in a private school
> than in a public school, and since some public schools outperform some
> private schools (many outperform ALL in my area), the premise is
> flawed to begin with.
I discribed why it is "possible". You provided nothing to refute my argument
and instead argue with someone else's point entirely and then claim that is
a refutation of my point. Sometime you will have to explain the logic behind
that.
>
> > > > Not being familiar with more than a small handful of private schools
I
> > > > cannot further expound on this idea but would find it of interest to
see
> > > > what the private school advocates in the group think of this.
> > >
> > > I've taught in both. The difference is in discipline and in the
> > > student body itself. The instructors in a public school in NY are
> > > generally superior to those in private schools. The course offerrings
> > > also tend to be superior. Discipline is better in private schools.
> > > Students are more serious and more motivated in private schools.
> > > There is virtually no difference in curriculum, teaching methods, etc,
> > > between the two. I suspect that things are similar elsewhere.
> >
> > Sounds like the clear difference that pushes against private schools in
your
> > experience is the quality of the teachers.
>
> That's one of the things; in the larger public schools, the higher
> level courses go way beyond what the private schools can offer. The
> other issue is that, on average, the public school teachers are better
> trained in their areas (you won't find, for example, any physics
> majors teaching physics at private schools in my area unless it
> happens to be a nun or brother).
You won't find any physics majors teaching physics in any of the schools in
our area that I know of. Same for chemists. They can all do a lot better in
industry. This is part of the problem with the unions. The idea that a BS in
chem is worth no more than a BA in PE is just plain stupid, but that doesn't
stop the unions from getting such nonsense into the contracts.
>
> > Care to reflect on how vouchers would impact that?
>
> I can't see any benefit whatsoever.
Because you can't see? Or because you can't bear to think of the thought
that vouchers would provide revenues to private schools that might be used
differently than the unions force them to be used in the public schools?
>
> > How could "course offerings also tend to be superior" if
> > there is "no difference in curriculum"?
>
> "Course" and "curriculum" don't mean the same thing. Where COURSES
> are the same, curriculum is also the same (NY regents is the
> standard). When comparing courses, one doesn't find AP sciences, for
> example, in private schools locally.
>
That sounds like a rather substantive difference in curriculums to me.
m_...@my-deja.com
rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> That's one of the things; in the larger public schools, the higher
> level courses go way beyond what the private schools can offer. The
> other issue is that, on average, the public school teachers are better
> trained in their areas (you won't find, for example, any physics
> majors teaching physics at private schools in my area unless it
> happens to be a nun or brother).
Have you looked at Boston University Academy (http://academy-
www.bu.edu/)? They list the qualifications of their faculty on
their site (http://academy-www.bu.edu/info/~faculty.html) and it
looks pretty impressive to me. I counted three physics degrees
out of their staff of 17. Students can take courses at the adjacent
university in their last two years.
panther
m_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Ron McDermott wrote:
>
> > That's one of the things; in the larger public schools, the higher
> > level courses go way beyond what the private schools can offer. The
> > other issue is that, on average, the public school teachers are
> > better trained in their areas (you won't find, for example, any
> > physics majors teaching physics at private schools in my area
> > unless it happens to be a nun or brother).
>
> Have you looked at Boston University Academy (http://academy-
> www.bu.edu/)? They list the qualifications of their faculty on
> their site (http://academy-www.bu.edu/info/~faculty.html) and it
> looks pretty impressive to me. I counted three physics degrees
> out of their staff of 17. Students can take courses at the adjacent
> university in their last two years.
>
or some such title. I recall that McDermott's assertion is correct;
State schools are more likely to employ math and science teachers with
degrees in the field. Interesting. NCES reported that students of
teachers with degrees in math outperformed students of teachers with
degrees in Education, on the NAEP math test. Small schools outperform
large schools, yet large schools can maintain a more specialized
faculty. State schools have more qualified staff, yet independent and
parochial schools outperform State schools. Homeschooled children of
parents with no college training at all using Alaska's subsidized
homeschool curriculum outperform students of the college-trained
teachers in the State school system. Some people maintain smaller
classes outperform large classes, yet TIMSS indicates top performers
Singapore, Korea, and Japan report much larger classes than US.
>
MK. Perhaps I can pull one thread from this muddle. Perhaps independent
schools have more freedom than State schools in the selection of
textbooks. In a State school, a teacher with a degree in math can toss
a wretched textbook and teach off the top of his head, while his
colleagues down the hall struggle with the incoherent text some
publisher paid some district official to approve. This relates to the
superior performance of homeschoolers. With a well-plotted curriculum,
parents don't need teaching degrees or degrees in the subject. All you
need is love, and basic literacy.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
MK. Roland Meighan ["Home-based Education Effectiveness Research and
Some of its Implications",Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.]
"So-called 'school phobia' is actually more likely to be a sign of
mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized
mental health problem"....p.281
>
www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
>
www.hslda.org (Very useful links, for prospective homeschoolers)
>
www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky comment on
school. Please read this.)
>
The model:
>
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537273125&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
36.1544683525&HIT_CONTEXT=943220636.1544683525&hitnum=271
>
The proposal:
>
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537272956&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
36.1544683525&HIT_CONTEXT=943220636.1544683525&hitnum=270
Neil Nelson
Neil Nelson wrote:
> Commonly, and as in the quote, the issue is how well some assumed
> standard educational requirements are met. Whereas my question is:
> how do we determine the standard educational requirements?
David Gossman wrote:
[ Many of us hold the opinion that far less is taught than could be. I
[ would suggest addressing that issue before trying to prioritize what
[ is taught. As an example our local high school, when I was on the
[ school board, nearly doubled the graduation requirements and went to
[ block scheduling. We also eliminated study halls. Many doubters said
[ we were dumping to much on the students, yet for two years after-
[ wards we saw steadily increasing numbers of students on the honor
[ roll and eliminated the prior tendency for the vast majority of the
[ honor roll to be girls. It took a priority of academics by the
[ administrators, something that is not real popular among some stu-
[ dents and parents.
How to most effectively organize the current resources to better meet
the currently assumed objectives (priorities) is certainly a necessary
concern. But, e.g., if we find that the current priorities are poorly
selected we will have wasted our resources irrespective of how well we
have met those subsequently useless objectives. And it is certain we
would be farther ahead if we would have spent now wasted resources on
useful objectives even if our method of doing so was not particularly
efficient. I.e., going in a _useless_ direction effectively is worth
less than going in a useful direction with some but perhaps not the
best effectiveness. We need to carefully look at the nature and con-
text of education in order to build a framework within which educa-
tional priorities are determined. Otherwise we cannot be assured that
we are not wasting our resources though we may be meeting apparently
arbitrary priorities effectively.
The argument against looking at the current priorities is that they
are a result of a long history that has obtained the many positive re-
sults we currently have: there is no serious need to review priorities
that have apparently worked so well for so long. However why might we
think that those priorities need to be re-evaluated? Well we are in
now in the information age, in the middle of an ongoing and increasing
technology/information revolution. Education is an information tech-
nology applied and specific to people. There is no technology based
industry that would fix priorities without a constant eye on new de-
velopments and their ongoing relative positioning with other technolo-
gy industries. Strategic planning for a technology industry is common-
ly based on the likely possibility that within the next five years the
nature and dynamics of their business will be very different than what
they are today. And yet in education we appear to be making the as-
sumption that the priorities of 30 years ago will still be good 30
years from now. There is little reason to think that many of the cur-
rent priorities are not now already obsolete. But the critical issue
is: how do we determine in an ongoing, dynamic way the strategic and
subsequently dependent education priorities? As we look at the context
and nature of education and what we expect fundamentally from it, the
method and resource allocation in the many and evolving ways need to
be managed according to those primary determinants.
> [example snipped]
[ Again I must disagree with your specific example. The mental exer-
[ cise of doing simple arithmetic calculations is a fundamental think-
[ ing process that must be developed and exercised prior to or along
[ with the development of more complex solving problem techniques. On
[ the flip side teaching students to use calculators instead of using
[ a slide rule is certainly warranted.
[ Actually I have no problem with the idea that public schools are
[ needed at all. I continue to support them in a number of ways. My
[ problem is with those who try to shift the blame for problems with
[ the system away from the system and on to the parents or with those
[ who try to deny that there is any sort of problem. If the public
[ schools continue down the path they are going we will become a two
[ tiered society. Those who home school or send kids to quality pri-
[ vate schools vs. those left in the public schools. Because those
[ left in the PS system will generally not have the active parents the
[ PS will suffer even more as support for funding, both taxes and the
[ "extras" that private groups so often provide will dry up. The PS
[ system desperately needs a wake up call to get them moving. Vouchers
[ and other forms of competition appear to be a reasonable way of do-
[ ing just that. Problem is that those inside the system, like any
[ good bureaucrat, are fighting to maintain the status quo. That is
[ where these debates ultimately arise from.
If as you tend to indicate in the first sentence of the previous para-
graph, and as it appears to me, that some form of public-school will
be required to catch all those students not having private and home-
school opportunities, and as we reduce the public-school per-student
resources, with everything else the same, the amount of education a
public-school student receives will be reduced in some similar propor-
tion. I.e., if there are commonly (national/community) recognized re-
quirements for basic education for which public-schools are the last
resort, then the public-schools will need to be provided sufficient
resources to meet those commonly recognized requirements.
I would agree that the nature and purposes of education are changing,
which is why I suggest we need to identify clear methods of determin-
ing what should be taught and not just to teach more of the same, such
that society should adapt the education method much as _all_ methods
have and are expected to adapt because of continual and constant
changes in technology and information methods. And although it might
be argued that some few efficiencies might be initially obtained by
reducing resources to public-schools, it is rather obvious that as re-
sources are withdrawn the expected results will be correspondingly re-
duced. I.e., I am not against change in general, which is a common
given, but against controllable change that is directly against our
common objectives.
The question is not whether we need public-education, but what should
be the definition or method of public-education in a larger education
mix (home education, private education, higher education, job-specific
education, adult education, retraining) such that the overall educa-
tion objectives, which we need to carefully define, are met according
to the different and changing demands on public and personal re-
sources. It may be that the portion of public-education in that over-
all mix will receive a smaller portion of the available resources in
the future, but we need to make those adjustments in an orderly fash-
ion, not by a general tearing down of public-education, but according
to our future expectations for public-education. I.e., our path to
some future education equilibrium needs also to be selected carefully.
Education is an investment (skill capital or quality of labor) like
any other that will obtain a return to the individual or society ac-
cording to the expected (the reason to invest) and actual (return on
investment) rewards for education. Investment (capital) in whatever
its forms exhibits properties of: type (kind), depth (complexity), de-
gree (volume) of implementation or employment, marginal return at cur-
rent volume of employment, diminishing return upon increased employ-
ment and to a point at which no return can be expected by any further
investment increase, competing opportunities for the same cost of
investment, efficiencies of different investment mixes or the overall
investment organization encompassing several, different investments,
with this last item being the organization and study of investment
(capital) in general that is the purpose of this paragraph. Selecting
between one education class or another is similar to selecting between
two pieces of manufacturing equipment that can each be employed under
a different production organization for different returns according to
given market or environment conditions.
[ Again I must disagree with your specific example. The mental exer-
[ cise of doing simple arithmetic calculations is a fundamental think-
[ ing process that must be developed and exercised prior to or along
[ with the development of more complex solving problem techniques.
I suggest we explore this more carefully. Take, e.g., basic Euclidean
Geometry in which there is no use of arithmetic calculations and yet
it could easily be argued that the logical method of Euclidean Geome-
try is more central to problem solving than being able to do long di-
vision particularly when you have a calculator in hand. Solving prob-
lems in general is by definition a maximally hard problem and such
that no particular problem solving method will ensure an ability to
solve in any reasonable time any arbitrarily given problem (length of
proof and hence solution complexity is not decidable and hence any
given technique, being a component of length or complexity, does not
guarantee a near term or useful solution). Rather, efficient proofs/
solutions of certain classes of problems will depend on different
techniques (technique organizations, languages) that might be said to
be adapted to or specialized for those moderately distinct problem
classes.
E.g., our current debate though perhaps implying some remote signifi-
cant use of basic arithmetic in, say, the concept of return-on-
investment, any actual, significant employment of basic arithmetic is
by appearances here particularly absent. Rather, we are engaged in
developing a model, a set of premises from which, via various func-
tions including logic, a consensus on action (the agreed conclusions)
can be derived. But primarily the point is that there is no theoretic
necessity for any given language such as implied above for basic
arithmetic computation, and that typical argument (what we are now do-
ing) does not by easy appearances utilize basic arithmetic computa-
tion.
To solve problems requires us to ask, at some initial point, what are
the problems including their nature and context that we should solve.
And then additionally, if some of those problems have been solved in
recorded documentation or can be quickly solved by convenient machine,
we do not need to spend much time solving those already effectively
solved problems, but only need to look in the documentation or in-
struct a machine.
Problem solving is perhaps the primary education objective and comes
down to: (1) what we already know, a primary objective of education,
(2) what we can easily come to know such as knowing how to quickly
find a documented solution, which does not seem to be a clearly iden-
tified education objective, (3) what we can instruct a machine to
find, which also does not seen primary for education, and (4) use of
discovery methods, which is by definition not well defined but can to
some degree be approximated by methods (1)-(3). The advance in infor-
mation technology allows a person to more effectively utilize (2) and
(3) without requiring (1).
Neil Nelson n_ne...@ix.netcom.com
David Gossman
Neil Nelson wrote:
>
> In article <vtBa4.3295$9e3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>
> How to most effectively organize the current resources to better meet
> the currently assumed objectives (priorities) is certainly a necessary
> concern. But, e.g., if we find that the current priorities are poorly
> selected we will have wasted our resources irrespective of how well we
> have met those subsequently useless objectives. And it is certain we
> would be farther ahead if we would have spent now wasted resources on
> useful objectives even if our method of doing so was not particularly
> efficient. I.e., going in a _useless_ direction effectively is worth
> less than going in a useful direction with some but perhaps not the
> best effectiveness. We need to carefully look at the nature and con-
> text of education in order to build a framework within which educa-
> tional priorities are determined. Otherwise we cannot be assured that
> we are not wasting our resources though we may be meeting apparently
> arbitrary priorities effectively.
Good point. Let me suggest a starting point - state mandates.
>
> The argument against looking at the current priorities is that they
> are a result of a long history that has obtained the many positive re-
> sults we currently have: there is no serious need to review priorities
> that have apparently worked so well for so long. However why might we
> think that those priorities need to be re-evaluated? Well we are in
> now in the information age, in the middle of an ongoing and increasing
> technology/information revolution. Education is an information tech-
> nology applied and specific to people. There is no technology based
> industry that would fix priorities without a constant eye on new de-
> velopments and their ongoing relative positioning with other technolo-
> gy industries. Strategic planning for a technology industry is common-
> ly based on the likely possibility that within the next five years the
> nature and dynamics of their business will be very different than what
> they are today. And yet in education we appear to be making the as-
> sumption that the priorities of 30 years ago will still be good 30
> years from now. There is little reason to think that many of the cur-
> rent priorities are not now already obsolete. But the critical issue
> is: how do we determine in an ongoing, dynamic way the strategic and
> subsequently dependent education priorities? As we look at the context
> and nature of education and what we expect fundamentally from it, the
> method and resource allocation in the many and evolving ways need to
> be managed according to those primary determinants.
Another excellent point which warrants a somewhat rhetorical question.
Who is in a better position to set those priorities, parents who are out
in the real world or teachers and the academics in the universities who
train them and write most of the curriculums? Doesn't some form of
parental choice provide an avenue for the parents to have some real
input on this critical issue?
>
> If as you tend to indicate in the first sentence of the previous para-
> graph, and as it appears to me, that some form of public-school will
> be required to catch all those students not having private and home-
> school opportunities, and as we reduce the public-school per-student
> resources, with everything else the same, the amount of education a
> public-school student receives will be reduced in some similar propor-
> tion. I.e., if there are commonly (national/community) recognized re-
> quirements for basic education for which public-schools are the last
> resort, then the public-schools will need to be provided sufficient
> resources to meet those commonly recognized requirements.
Agreed. My concern is that the parents most interested in supporting
education will no longer be involved. It would seem that the only way to
maintain sufficient funding would be a voucher system so that public
funding of education would not come to an end but, rather, would
continue to get the support of the more involved parents.
>
> I would agree that the nature and purposes of education are changing,
> which is why I suggest we need to identify clear methods of determin-
> ing what should be taught and not just to teach more of the same, such
> that society should adapt the education method much as _all_ methods
> have and are expected to adapt because of continual and constant
> changes in technology and information methods. And although it might
> be argued that some few efficiencies might be initially obtained by
> reducing resources to public-schools, it is rather obvious that as re-
> sources are withdrawn the expected results will be correspondingly re-
> duced. I.e., I am not against change in general, which is a common
> given, but against controllable change that is directly against our
> common objectives.
But that is exactly what will happen so long as the current bureaucracy
tries to maintain the status quo. (Except that at that point the change
may no longer be controllable.)
>
> The question is not whether we need public-education, but what should
> be the definition or method of public-education in a larger education
> mix (home education, private education, higher education, job-specific
> education, adult education, retraining) such that the overall educa-
> tion objectives, which we need to carefully define, are met according
> to the different and changing demands on public and personal re-
> sources. It may be that the portion of public-education in that over-
> all mix will receive a smaller portion of the available resources in
> the future, but we need to make those adjustments in an orderly fash-
> ion, not by a general tearing down of public-education, but according
> to our future expectations for public-education. I.e., our path to
> some future education equilibrium needs also to be selected carefully.
Which is why I think that part time home schooling should be promoted
rather than discouraged as the largest teacher's unions policy attempts
to do.
>
> Education is an investment (skill capital or quality of labor) like
> any other that will obtain a return to the individual or society ac-
> cording to the expected (the reason to invest) and actual (return on
> investment) rewards for education. Investment (capital) in whatever
> its forms exhibits properties of: type (kind), depth (complexity), de-
> gree (volume) of implementation or employment, marginal return at cur-
> rent volume of employment, diminishing return upon increased employ-
> ment and to a point at which no return can be expected by any further
> investment increase, competing opportunities for the same cost of
> investment, efficiencies of different investment mixes or the overall
> investment organization encompassing several, different investments,
> with this last item being the organization and study of investment
> (capital) in general that is the purpose of this paragraph. Selecting
> between one education class or another is similar to selecting between
> two pieces of manufacturing equipment that can each be employed under
> a different production organization for different returns according to
> given market or environment conditions.
I'm not sure I buy this. The return is to far into the future to be at
all predictable. That would seem to make your approach above rather
difficult at best to sell to anyone.
>
> I suggest we explore this more carefully. Take, e.g., basic Euclidean
> Geometry in which there is no use of arithmetic calculations and yet
> it could easily be argued that the logical method of Euclidean Geome-
> try is more central to problem solving than being able to do long di-
> vision particularly when you have a calculator in hand. Solving prob-
> lems in general is by definition a maximally hard problem and such
> that no particular problem solving method will ensure an ability to
> solve in any reasonable time any arbitrarily given problem (length of
> proof and hence solution complexity is not decidable and hence any
> given technique, being a component of length or complexity, does not
> guarantee a near term or useful solution). Rather, efficient proofs/
> solutions of certain classes of problems will depend on different
> techniques (technique organizations, languages) that might be said to
> be adapted to or specialized for those moderately distinct problem
> classes.
The concepts of basic logic (as found in a geometry proof) are an
entirely different but complimentary skill area to basic computation.
Both need to be taught right a long with reading in the earliest grades.
Teaching geometry at the high school level as a means to teach logic is
like spitting in the wind. Those students that all ready have developed
that aptitude learn little but the formal methodology. Those with out
the aptitude likely will not learn anything and will get by via
memorization.
>
> E.g., our current debate though perhaps implying some remote signifi-
> cant use of basic arithmetic in, say, the concept of return-on-
> investment, any actual, significant employment of basic arithmetic is
> by appearances here particularly absent. Rather, we are engaged in
> developing a model, a set of premises from which, via various func-
> tions including logic, a consensus on action (the agreed conclusions)
> can be derived. But primarily the point is that there is no theoretic
> necessity for any given language such as implied above for basic
> arithmetic computation, and that typical argument (what we are now do-
> ing) does not by easy appearances utilize basic arithmetic computa-
> tion.
>
> To solve problems requires us to ask, at some initial point, what are
> the problems including their nature and context that we should solve.
> And then additionally, if some of those problems have been solved in
> recorded documentation or can be quickly solved by convenient machine,
> we do not need to spend much time solving those already effectively
> solved problems, but only need to look in the documentation or in-
> struct a machine.
I disagree. Many of the engineers currently coming out of college are
quite skilled at getting a problem into a computer program. What many of
them lack is the ability to know whether or not the computer is
providing even close to the right answer. That intuitive, common sense
type of understanding of a problem and problem solving requires lots of
hands on calculations. I think that nearly the same can be said for many
other professions, more and more of which depend on computer modeling
and problem solving.
>
> Problem solving is perhaps the primary education objective and comes
> down to: (1) what we already know, a primary objective of education,
> (2) what we can easily come to know such as knowing how to quickly
> find a documented solution, which does not seem to be a clearly iden-
> tified education objective, (3) what we can instruct a machine to
> find, which also does not seen primary for education, and (4) use of
> discovery methods, which is by definition not well defined but can to
> some degree be approximated by methods (1)-(3). The advance in infor-
> mation technology allows a person to more effectively utilize (2) and
> (3) without requiring (1).
>
While I can certainly agree that we need more of (2) through (4) in our
educational program I would differentiate between what we know and what
we know how to do. You are correct that we need less memorization of
facts. That does not lessen the fact that in order for items (2) through
(4) to be effective we still need to build on (1), not the memorization
portion but the knowing how portion. On second thought perhaps I am
coloring my thoughts on this based on your argument against
computational skills. Perhaps you intend that knowing how should be in
(2). If that is the case then I would simply make the case that
computational skills are a matter of knowing how - not "already
knowing".
David Gossman
David Gossman
DillyTaunt wrote:
>
> What I'm NOT aware of is a controlled study to confirm (or
> refute) my general impression that the small schools
> achieve better results at less cost. Any thoughts on
> finding such?
>
The small (k-12 300 students in one building) rural school near my farm
in eastern Iowa is, I believe, smaller than the others in the county,
has lower per student costs and, if I recall the highest graduation rate
and the highest rate of students going on to college. Someplace (its
been about 3 years since I looked) that type of information can be found
online for Iowa school districts.
David Gossman
David Gossman
DillyTaunt wrote:
>
> David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> quotes
> somebody and replies:
>
> >>E.g., when I was in grade-school, I learned long
> >>division, fractions, and many computational routines for
> >>which I now use a calculator. When I learned those
> >>routines, there was a good reason to learn them
> >>because no one expected calculators and computers
> >>to be so conveniently available as they are now. But
> >>now it is faster and more accurate to use these
> >>calculators, and the time we spend on teaching
> >>students to do what cheap calculators can do might be
> >>better spent on teaching students how to use those
> >>calculators more effectively, how to solve the
> >>application problem as against how to compute
> >>the details of the application problem.
>
> >Again I must disagree with your specific example. The
> >mental exercise of doing simple arithmetic calculations is
> >a fundamental thinking process that must be developed and
> >exercised prior to or along with the development of more
> >complex solving problem techniques. On the flip side
> >teaching students to use calculators instead of using a
> >slide rule is certainly warranted.
>
> David, with respect, I disagree with YOUR specific example.
> Teaching a kid to use a slide rule is a way to teach her
> to ESTIMATE, (keep track of the powers of ten, at least).
Which does not require a slide rule. We do that as "in your head
exercises". The nine year old has gotten carried away with this and now
prides herself in doing mutistep problems in her head and then just
writing down the answers. Unlike the teachers I had we just tell her go
for it - as long as she gets them right.:)
>
> Nice introduction to logarithms, too.
Yes and we use it for such. Even had the 9 year old make one for herself
last year. But that is not the same as teaching proficiency in using a
real slide rule (remember the bamboo ones with about a dozen scales on
each side?) for real computational purposes which is the way they were
actually used before calculators. That takes considerable practice and I
think is a waste of time now.
>
> Doesn't mean I agree with the other guy, (Sorry, lost the
> attributation.) There's a solid place for calculators in
> the classroom to solve problems that CANNOT be solved in
> the old-style analytical ways. But not as a substitute for
> learning how math works. Early!
>
> Honestly, I sometimes wonder if people remember or have
> ever considered the traditional reasons for teaching
> particular things. Paper-and-pencil long division isn't
> about dividing the schools' costs into the valuation of the
> communities' homes to calculate the mill levy. Really not.
> It's about molding a habit of thought.
Yes, and I agreed with everything else you said and therefore clipped.
Well put.
David Gossman
panther
rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 02:19:52, dilly...@aol.com (DillyTaunt) wrote:
>
>
> > Quite frankly, from a layman's dilettantish viewpoint, it
> > ain't whether the school is public or private as much as
> > whether the student-body-on-site is over or under 400.
> > LARGE schools seem, to me, to produce crappy results
> > regardless of funding.
>
> whether the "crappy results" are educationally related, or
> demographically related.
>
is the most densely populated State in the US, yet has an average school
district size under 5000 (if I recall correctly) and relatively few
studeents in districts over 20,000. Singapore and Hong Kong are urban,
yet exhibit high TIMSS 8th grade math performance.
>
> > >In virtually every category of identifiable indicators of
> > >academic success (income level, two-parent families,
> > >parental education level, racial makeup, and on and on),
> > >private school students, on average, possess positive
> > >indicators to a much greater extent than do public school
> > >students.
> >
> > Well... yeah. Mostly. But mostly that data is about schools
> > supported by the sufficiently affluent. A few voucher
> > experiments (undertaken over great opposition) try to
> > control the variables you mention -- often using the
> > lottery-slotting techniques _I_ mention. Would you agree
> > that several such experiments in various states and
> > districts and venues are necessary before we can say, one
> > way or the other? OR do you have divine inspiration such
> > that no experiments are necessary?
>
independent or parochial schools, in Herman Brustaert's study of schools
in Belgium. In the World Bank's study, when students of similar parent
SES were compared, independent and parochial schools outperformeed State
schools.
>
> Note: This is not about MY point of view, but about the assinine
> increase in SAT score. THAT is unsupportable.
>
class that isn't constantly disrupted by students that the State schools
cannot evict without great difficulty? Wouldn't students be more likly
to do beetter in a school that their parents selected to match their
interests and learning stules, than in a school to which some anonymous
bureaucrat assigned them based on their residence? Is that really so
implausible?
>
>...The naive claim that
> private schools do a "better" job is similarly unsupported when one
> considers populations which are demographically comparable. Since I
> consider vouchers, as envisioned, to be injurious to education in
> general, I oppose such "experiments". I'd be happy to see public
> schools which were allowed to operate like private schools, however
> (charter schools).
>
pleasse? How is a school that receives State money not a "public
school"? Why can we not consider all schools, even schools operated by
the Catholic Church, CPUSA and KKK to be "public schools", if they teach
some agreed-upon basic curriculum (reading and math) and take State tax
support? As to "injurious to education"...how does a parochial school
agreeing to accept voucher students under a voucher plan look any
different, from a School Board mmber's point of view, from a gift to the
school didtrict of a free school building and donation of volunteer
staff willing to work for less than the mean per student cost to the
district? Practically, the only difference I see is that the
organizations currently receiving the $300 billion+ in k-12 subsidies
insist on an imaginary distinction. If vouchers injure "education", how
do Singapore, Netherlands, Belgium, Hong Kong, etc. do so well?
>
> > I notice Ron didn't mention campus size. Would you agree,
> > sir, that campus size (students per facility) is an
> > "identifiable indicator of academic success"?
>
> again, comparisons between populations which are not demographically
> comparable in the FIRST place! Large schools tend to be urban and
> high minority populated, so there are simply too many other factors
> involved to make such a blanket statement. I'll say this much; the
> high school in my district has a wonderful reputation and turns out
> high quality graduates - It is the 10th largest high school in NY (and
> is only 10-12th grade!), and is 50% minority. In this instance, the
> trend isn't borne out.
>
> > problem so far unaddressed here. Cost-inefficiency.
>
>
Education Statistics". Take the correlation ($/student, enrollment) for
each State with 5 or more districts over 20,000. This is positive in
all but three or four States. The correlation (%minority. $/student) is
positive in EVERY State with 5 or more districts over 20,000. The myth
of the underfunded, inner-city minority school district is a LIE. The
bureaucrats steal poor kids' futures. Across the US, the correlation
(%20K+,$/student) is positive. $20K+ is the fraction of State school
enrollment in districts over 20,000. Similarly, the correlation (mean
district size, $/student) is positive across the US. The consequence of
increasing inequality (.g., the 90th-10th percentile score difference),
falling minority performance, and rising cost as resources and students
are concentratd in larger districts, is what is predicted by rather well
accepted economic models of Hirschliefer and Olsen (who do not address
education explicitly).
>
> > Leaving aside for the moment whether (small) private
> > schools are "Better" in teaching reading, writing, and
> > 'rithmetic... It is often (not always) true that privately
> > funded schools spend less-per-student to achieve their
> > results (whatever those are.)
>
> throwing out the religious institutions (which are subsidized and in
> which at least some of the staff work virtually for nothing) since
> they have little or nothing in common with the costs of operating a
> public school? And we're not including private schools which do not
> teach special ed, of course, because everyone knows that special ed
> inflates apparent average costs? Or are we ignoring all that in
> making this comparison?
>
algebra for less than the NEA would like its members to accept?
>
> > What keeps large public schools from breaking themselves
> > up into smaller organizations?
>
> would RAISE costs not lower them...
>
>
Take care.
MK. From: Hyman and Penroe, Journal of School Psychology.
"Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school
children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the
traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988;
Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990). Extrapolation from these
studies suggests that psychological maltreatment of school children,
especially those who are poor, is fairly widespread in the United
States...."
"In the early 1980s, while the senior author was involved in a school
violence project, an informal survey of a random group of inner city
high school students was conducted. When asked why they misbehaved in
school, the most common response was that they wanted to get back at
teachers who put them down, did not care about them, or showed
disrespect for them, their families, or their culture...."
"...schools do not encourage research regarding possible emotional
maltreatment of students by staff or investigatiion into how this
behavior might affect student misbehavior...."
"...Since these studies focused on teacher-induced PTSD and explored
all types of teacher maltreatment, some of the aggressive feelings were
also caused by physical or sexual abuse. There was no attempt to
separate actual aggression from feelings of aggression. The results
indicated that at least 1% to 2% of the respondents' symptoms were
sufficient for a diagnosis of PTSD. It is known that when this disorder
develops as a result of interpersonal violence, externalizing symptoms
are often the result (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)."
"While 1% to 2% might not seem to be a large percentage of a
school-aged population, in a system like New York City, this would be
about 10,000 children so traumatized by educators that they may suffer
serious, and sometimes lifelong emotional problems (Hyman, 1990; Hyman,
Zelikoff & Clarke, 1988). A good percentage of these students develop
angry and aggressive responses as a result. Yet, emotional abuse and
its relation to misbehavior in schools receives little pedagogical,
psychological, or legal attention and is rarely mentioned in textbooks
on school discipline (Pokalo & Hyman, 1993, Sarno, 1992)."
"As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional maltreatment
in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic status (SES) of
the student population (Hyman, 1990)."
>
........................................................................
>[Roland Meighan, "Home-based Education Effectiveness Research and Some
of its Implications",Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.]
Volume 8, Number 3, contains two research reports on the issue of social
skills. The first finding of the study by Larry Shyers (1992) was that
home-schooled students received significantly lower problem behavior
scores than schooled children. His next finding was that home- schooled
children are socially well adjusted, but schooled children are not so
well adjusted. Shyers concludes that we are asking the wrong question
when we ask about the social adjustment of home-schooled children. The
real question is why is the social; adjustment of
schooled children of such poor quality?"
>
"The second study, by Thomas Smedley (1992), used different test
instruments but comes to the same conclusion, that home-educated
children are more mature and better socialized than those attending
school." ...p. 277
>
"12. So-called 'school phobia' is actually more likely to be a sign
of mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized
mental health problem"....p.281
>
is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe
level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and
originality.
School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole span of human
existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks, new and
unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense and common
decency."
--H.L. Mencken
>
"I'm sorry I have so much rage, but you put it in me." --Dylan Klebold
>
MK. Background reading, for those trained in economics or evolutionary
biology:
>
Axelrod, R., "The Evolution of Cooperation".
>
Chubb and Moe, "Politics, Markets, and America's Schools".
>
West, E., "Education and the State".
>
Hirschliefer, J. "Anarchy and its Breakdown" [Journal of Political
Economy].
>
Olsen, M., "The End of the Middle Way", [American Economic Review].
>
Young and Marcoulier, "The Black Hole of Graft; The Predatory State and
the Informal Economy", [American Economic Review].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
DillyTaunt
>LARGE schools also tend to be URBAN schools, so one has to
>wonder whether the "crappy results" are educationally
>related, or demographically related.
Large ~= Urban is a valid tendency. However, I stress the
example I originally cited (from local experience) compared
Brock, TX (small,poor, rural) to University Park, TX
(small, rich, central-urban). Both not-crappy. My initial
impression is that the common factor is school size. It
would, I agree, be helpful to find a large rural ethnic-mix
low-income school to compare to a similar urban one.
It is certainly still possible to find comparable
demographic areas in the Great Plains where the only
real distinction between the school systems are those
which have followed the "Unified/Central District" model
(typically closing the small, older, town, high schools
in several communities in favor of a consolidated large new
building high school at an intersection of two highways...
think "Columbine" ) and those painfully maintaining the
(small, old, downtown etc.) local schools. I'm personally
aware of several such. (I regret to report my known
samples are under-representative of the Black/Asian/
Hispanic/AmerInd proportion of the demographic of the
coastal states.)
What I'm NOT aware of is a controlled study to confirm (or
refute) my general impression that the small schools
achieve better results at less cost. Any thoughts on
finding such?
Now, I'm a newbie in this forum. Sometimes posters are
permitted to generalize, and sometimes posters are attacked
for the attempt to generalize. When is which proper?
Carrying on:
Ron > >private school students, on average, possess
> > positive indicators to a much greater extent than do
> > public school students.
>
Me > A few voucher experiments (undertaken over great
> opposition) try to control the variables you mention --
> Would you agree that several such experiments in various
> states and districts and venues are necessary before we
> can say, one way or the other?
Ron > This is not about MY point of view, but about the
> assinine claim that entering a private school confers a
> 50 to 105 point increase in SAT score.
Oh.
Is that a "no"?
I was kind of interested in your point of view. I thought
if I could understand what you and other various people on
all sides of the issue thought, WHY they thought it, what
experiences they brought in, and what (second-hand) sources
they adduced, I might either be obliged to change my own
mind, or be better informed and more persuasive when the
issue was discussed seriously in my locale.
But I'm not going to torture an opinion out of you. ot
unless you consider very long posts torturous. ;)
By the way, I missed the post where this 50 point SAT
strawman was first raised. (I have the crippled AOL
newsreader...) I came in where Wally Williams asked an
open-ended question, and Dr Beldin cited participation in
Algebra classes. When and by whom were SAT scores
mentioned?
Ron >Since I consider vouchers, as envisioned, to be
> injurious to education in general, I oppose such
> "experiments".
Hmm. I guess that WAS a "no". Okay. Again, I seek only
to understand. Do you oppose experimentation, as harmful,
in general? Say somebody comes up with a new trendy
curricular theory. Should it be tried, even though your
experience tends to suggest that most such trendy theories
are failures that leave students worse off than before?
Or, are you saying that some experiments are worthwhile,
and some not, and that vouchers fall into the latter
category?
>I'd be happy to see public schools which were allowed to
>operate like private schools, however (charter schools).
Here, we are in sweet accord. Charters tend to be smaller
and have less overhead, I think.
Me > > I notice Ron didn't mention campus size. Would you
> >agree, sir, that campus size (students per facility) is
> >an "identifiable indicator of academic success"?
Ron> I'm not sure that it is. It SEEMS to be, but this
> involves, once again, comparisons between populations
> which are not demographically comparable in the FIRST
> place!
It seems to me that confirming or refuting the conjecture
(on which we agree) calls for experiment. (Upon which we
may yet be quibbling.)
>I'll say this much; the high school in my district has a
>wonderful reputation and turns out high quality graduates
>-It is the 10th largest high school in NY (and is only 10-
>12th grade!) and is 50% minority. In this instance, the
>trend isn't borne out.
Good. Great. Congratulations. Uhhmmm... How do you
happen to _measure_ the quality of your graduates?
How many (general quality?) 8th graders are there in the
district compared to high-quality graduating 12th graders?
Since you brought it up, how are the SAT scores (Percent of
school population attempting it, scores of those who take
it.) What measure do you prefer? _I_ like to use number-
per-hundred of "National Merit Scholars" in a graduating
class. My (small-town, small school) home high school
typically had 2 or 3 NMS grads per year, out of a class
size of under 200. The local Dallas area high schools
trumpet loudly when they post 2 or more NMS grads -- out of
class sizes 10 times larger. (This is, of course, twenty
five years later and 1500 miles south.) I don't claim this
personal touchstone as a substantive statistic... but I'm
sure there ARE such statistics and I'm eager to learn what
your high school uses. (If you care to share the NMS/class
ratio, as well, thanks.)
Medical analogy again. American medicine is (generally)
well admired. We admit, however, there are embarrassing
exceptions (malpracticing doctors, patients denied care.)
Exceptions may or may not affect reputations. I'm still
glad to hear of a well-reputed school and trust your
reputation is well-founded. (And offer general good wishes
for high-quality, well-reputed hospitals in your area, as
well. )
Me> > Large schools and school systems tend to have another
> > problem so far unaddressed here. Cost-inefficiency.
Ron> A claim absent any real proof.
The Stossel piece isn't "real"? Okay.
Check, if you like,
http://pieofplano.freeservers.com/costper.htm
for one (skilled parent's) analysis/comparison of his
(large, rich, sucessful, suburban) districts cost-per-pupil
to other comparable demographic areas. Let me know what
trend you think can be inferred from the state-wide data.
Me > privately funded schools spend less-per-student to
> achieve their results (whatever those are.)
Ron>Are you sure this reflects actual COSTS, or merely
>tuition?
Well, I said what they SPEND... but your point about my
sureness is valid. I'm _never_ sure.
Doesn't keep me from making reasonable conjectures and
trying research, experiment, discussion, etc to refute or
confirm.
Ron> And we're throwing out the religious institutions
>(which are subsidized and in which at least some of the
>staff work virtually for nothing) since they have little
>or nothing in common with the costs of operating a public
>school?
Oh, now, PLEASE! Let's see, traits in common:
The real estate upon which the school rests, tax free for
churchs. Tax-free for public schools. Tax-paid for
others. Tentative conclusion: Fair comparison.
The buildings within which schooling is done. Fully
amortized for many (not all) parochial schools. Fully
amortized for older public schools, (since the baby boom)
but still making payments in large, (unified district)
newer public facilities. Tentative conclusion: who can
tell?
Teachers. Underpaid in public school, at roughly 20
students per instructor. Underpaid in parochial school,
with higher student teacher ratios. Tentative conclusion:
fair comparison -- varied philosophy.
Support staff (janitors, engineers, clerks). Overstaffed
overpaid in public schools... tend to be civil-service
employees accountable to a city bureaucracy separate from
local school administration. (E.g. Principal can't fire
the janitor.) Understaffed, overpaid in parochial
schools... tend to be empty unfilled positions and leaky
faucets. (Just my anecdotal experience...) Tentative
conclusion: Comparable, with advantage parochial.
Administration: Urban Public School Superintendents (Crew,
Rojas) earn salary and perqs comparable to lower Fortune-
500 CEOs. Maintain cast of thousands to do studies,
evaluate trends, fire janitors, etc. Public school
principals have serious chain-of-command issues. Parochial
schools: the principal is IT. Tentative conclusion:
NOT comparable, advantage parochial.
Ancillary resources: Buses, garages, stadiums,
auditoriums, administration buildings, --- here Ron is
exactly correct. The parochial schools have little in
common with public.
If we trim non-academic investments of large public schools
--like buses and stadiums and acres of parking lot and
warehouses full of office supplies -- out of the mix then
the budgets of small (private or charter) schools and the
district in general become much more comparable.
Ron> And we're not including private schools which do not
> teach special ed, of course, because everyone knows that
> special ed inflates apparent average costs? Or are we
> ignoring all that in making this comparison?
*sigh*. That' a sore subject. If I _had_ solid data; if it
were possible to obtain it, you can be sure I'd share.
Anecdotally... the Grand Prairie Texas public schools are
in federal court against the NAACP. The NAACP charges the
district with transfering a disproporation number of black
kids into special ed courss -- to take them OUT of the
state TAAS testing pool. Part of the evidence that this
was misfeasance by the District is that six such kids, from
two families, who transferred into a Grand Prairie private
(NOT parochial, but open to all comers and not offering
any religious instruction) Episcopal school were in two
months successfully mainstreamed into regular classes
(and passed the TAAS...) Now, I can't generalize this case
to national practice. But the NAACP seems willing to.
I used to live in the Hampton Roads area in Virginia, and
follow the news there. This summer the news was released
their public schools are TEN times more likely to have a
kid classified as AHAD, and taking Ritalin, as in the U.S.
population at large. Those kids are, of course, sucking
down extra special ed funds for their drugs and monitoring.
(Let alone the instruction they may be receiving.)
I _conjecture_ that the expenses associated with special ed
in public school are inflated. The point about the services
offered remains valid. But USE of special education moneys
appears to often include purposes beyond reaching out to
help kids beyond the scope of the regular class. That
muddies the waters to a point where reasonable people can
get frothingly frustrated in the discussion.
We may need to take the issue to a separate thread.
> What keeps large public schools from breaking themselves
> up into smaller organizations?
> Nothing other than needing more facilities, more staff,
> etc, which would RAISE costs not lower them...
Let me rephrase: How do universities break themselves up...
(actually, STAY broken up) into discreet colleges while
sharing dorms, clerical staff, libraries, etc?
Besides, see the website I cite and let's talk again. Take
all the time you like.
Right now, though, you have me totally curious. If you
do NOT conjecture smaller schools have the advantage,
where is your support for charter schools coming from?
Since we agree in that conclusion, I wonder what basis in
common we have for it. You say you wish public schools
were "allowed to operate like private schools"... in what
ways? What changes would you import from the private
school model were you appointed Superintendent over public
chartered schools?
DillyTaunt
Supported me in my "size matters"
post, so I shouldn't pick on him...
but I will.
>rom: Hyman and Penroe, Journal of School Psychology.
> "Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school
>children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the
>traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988;
>Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990).
> "As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional maltreatment
>in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic status (SES) of
>the student population (Hyman, 1990)."
>>
Help me be sure the pshrink cited,
Hyman, isn't the Harvard professor who wrote the book about alien abductions --
as if there were something really serious behind
the accounts. Or was that HyNan, or
something?
DillyTaunt
Nice introduction to logarithms, too.
Doesn't mean I agree with the other guy, (Sorry, lost the
attributation.) There's a solid place for calculators in
the classroom to solve problems that CANNOT be solved in
the old-style analytical ways. But not as a substitute for
learning how math works. Early!
Honestly, I sometimes wonder if people remember or have
ever considered the traditional reasons for teaching
particular things. Paper-and-pencil long division isn't
about dividing the schools' costs into the valuation of the
communities' homes to calculate the mill levy. Really not.
It's about molding a habit of thought.
Teaching long division with pencil and paper is teaching
the very fundamentals of the method of science itself. You
have a complicated problem. You break off a little piece of
it and search your memory for similar cases, then make a
conjecture. This you WRITE DOWN, no backing away later.
Then you test your conjecture. There are certain
consequences... either you have a number too big to
subtract, or the leftover part is bigger than the original
divisor... or you have a good guess! Then you proceed, to
correct or modify your guess (and WRITE IT DOWN) or carry
on after a good guess. At each stage you record your
guess, you check, you nibble off a little bit and get
closer and closer to either a final answer, or establishing
there can not BE a "final" answer.
Teaching phonics isn't to teach "cat sat on the mat". It
about a step wise approach to meaning instead of trying to
grasp the whole concept at once. IF a kid is in the habit
of stepping through pol-eee-syl-ab-ic words... building
up meaning slowly and methodically, the habit will carry
into stepping through the meaning of "carbon tetra-
chlor-ide" or "felis cattus cattus" "two-cycle average
daily credit balance".
Anybody see the old movie _The Karate Kid_ ? The old master
has the kid sanding the floor, waxing the car, painting the
fence. Why? NOT to get the floor,car,fence fixed. To
condition the muscles, the habits, the reflexes...
So why do we teach what we teach? Why football? Why
arithmetic? Why band or orchestra? Why shop, why
computers, why civics or history or rhetoric or "modern
media appreciation". Why geometry and not double-entry
bookkeeping? Why novels and not sermons?
I dunno. All _I_ know is why I keep an old slide rule
around for my daughter.
panther
dilly...@aol.com (DillyTaunt) wrote:
> >panther igon...@my-deja.com
>
> Supported me in my "size matters"
> post, so I shouldn't pick on him...
> but I will.
>
> > "Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school
> >children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the
> >traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988;
> >Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990).
maltreatment
> >in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic status (SES)
of
> >the student population (Hyman, 1990)."
> >>
>
> Hyman, isn't the Harvard professor who wrote the book about alien
abductions --
> as if there were something really serious behind
> the accounts. Or was that HyNan, or
> something?
>
UFO knowledge is evidence of a seriously distractable mind. You have
two other people in mind: Allen Hynek (sp?) and the Harvard
psychologist (psychiatrist?) John Mack, poor fellow.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
panther
dilly...@aol.com (DillyTaunt) wrote:
> Ron McDermott replies:
>
> >LARGE schools also tend to be URBAN schools, so one has to
> >wonder whether the "crappy results" are educationally
> >related, or demographically related.
>
> Large ~= Urban is a valid tendency. However, I stress the
> example I originally cited (from local experience) compared
> Brock, TX (small,poor, rural) to University Park, TX
> (small, rich, central-urban). Both not-crappy. My initial
> impression is that the common factor is school size. It
> would, I agree, be helpful to find a large rural ethnic-mix
> low-income school to compare to a similar urban one.
>
maintains about 250 schools for 180,000 k-12 students (K not
compulsory). Few, if any, other States approach this mean school size.
The worst performing schools (we use the Stanford Achievement Test) are
rural, not urban. All schools are ethnically mixed, except for those on
Niihau (100% Hawaiian). The graduating class at Moanalua HS(600+) is
larger than the average school -district- in N. Dakota (by some
measures the top-performing State in the US) or Nebraska. A study I
gleaned from the dumpster behind the DOE bldg indicates that the Hawaii
DOE observed the relation between school size and test performance that
you mentioned. By some measures (NAEP mean 8th grade Numbers and
Operations scores of children of White or Black hS-educated parents)
Hawaii is dead last in US. Mean 8th grade math (combined score) is
lower than all but two or three States.
>
> It is certainly still possible to find comparable
> demographic areas in the Great Plains where the only
> real distinction between the school systems are those
> which have followed the "Unified/Central District" model
> (typically closing the small, older, town, high schools
> in several communities in favor of a consolidated large new
> building high school at an intersection of two highways...
> think "Columbine" ) and those painfully maintaining the
> (small, old, downtown etc.) local schools. I'm personally
> aware of several such. (I regret to report my known
> samples are under-representative of the Black/Asian/
> Hispanic/AmerInd proportion of the demographic of the
> coastal states.)
>
> What I'm NOT aware of is a controlled study to confirm (or
> refute) my general impression that the small schools
> achieve better results at less cost. Any thoughts on
> finding such?
>
conducting controlled experiments in a free society, and recommended
moving toward a market in education to use the natural variation that
results to provide feedback for best practice. Controlled experiments
in this area may be either impossible or so narrow as to be trivial.
Even volunteering for a controlled experiment introduces an element of
sample self-selection. Can you test an ethnic mix, or does "controlled"
mean students of the same racial extraction, parent occupation,
religion, taste in recreation, age, residence (rural, urban fringe,
urban), etc? If, over a period of years, you test high school students
of the same age in the same locale, then you test students of a -
different- cohort, separated by one year in the fads on Early Education
that washed through Colleges of when they entered Kindergarten. If you
somehow eliminate many extraneous variables, then you get a study that
will contain a sample representative of its narrow population, and
people will say your result will not generalize beyond the population
of 15-16 year old White, Methodist, left-handed, vegetarian, soccer-
playing non-musicians of your study. That's the performance side. For
reasons similar to those you mention later (snipped) in your discussion
of State school versus parochial school costs, it may be equally
difficult to define "comparable" cost data.
>
> Now, I'm a newbie in this forum. Sometimes posters are
> permitted to generalize, and sometimes posters are attacked
> for the attempt to generalize. When is which proper?
>
supports the current monopoly of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel on the
receipt of tax subsidies for education.
>
MK. Discussion deleted (please backtrack)...
SUSUPPLY
>You say you wish public schools
>were "allowed to operate like private schools"... in what
>ways? What changes would you import from the private
>school model were you appointed Superintendent over public
>chartered schools?
Ah. What fond memories this evokes for me. To help Ron out (celebrate the end
of the penultimate year of the 20th century?) I repost from May 12, 1999
(thread title, Tennis Anyone?):
<<
Ron McDermott admonishes me to adhere to the stern standards of the
euphoniously named newsgroup, misc-education:
>And if you can't
>bring yourself to respond civilly this time, don't bother responding....
Which standards of civility he demonstrates for me with:
>Had you been here or taken the time to look them up, you would not
>have to guess, make an ass of yourself, or attempt insult instead of
>reasoned response.
and,
>Are you really this much of an asshole, or CAN you discuss things
>intelligently when you want to?
I will attempt to be on my best behavior, teacher (wouldn’t want to have to
stay after school, heh heh).
Now, where were we? Oh yes, I was politely responding to some statements of
questionable validity that you had made to another poster, Ron. The exchanges
went:
Third party:
>> >> Let's face it, the topic is about vouchers: the right to take your
>> >> students share of tax dollars and attend a school of their families
>choice
>> >> regardless of the reason.
Ron’s contradictory claim:
>> >A "right" which does not exist and HAS not existed in the past in this
>> >country, however..
I merely offered the facts:
>> Oh? It seems to be a right (for some) in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Maine, and
>> Florida.
Ron charmingly concedes he was wrong:
>Limited, test cases, and virtually yesterday. Not a "right" for all
>as you
>suggest above.
May I quibble, ever so slightly, with the erudite Mr. McDermott: When I said,
"for some", I did not mean, "for all". Please forgive me for the confusion
(put it down to the four years I spent in a public school).
Third party:
>> >> The bottom line is that when we stop the monopoly of the public school
>> >> system, we will see education overall improve.
Ron again claims otherwise:
>> >There is absolutely zero justification for this statement. I can
>> >accept that education would improve for some (but it would ALSO if public
>> >schools were simply allowed to operate under the same rules as
>> >private schools)...
Concerned for his popularity among his teacher colleagues, I caution:
>> [Be careful what you wish for, Ron.]
Ron throws caution to the wind:
>Why? I'm in favor of improved education for ALL, aren't you? You
>also failed to respond to my point.
Allow me to explain myself. I’ve noticed a preference among teaching
professionals in these discussions for process, as opposed to results (student
achievement, as they say, being the responsibility of the student, not the
teacher).
If public and private schools had to operate under the same rules (for brevity,
call it the consumer sovereignty model) I fear that you, and your colleagues,
might have to revise your theories.
We pick up with Ron again:
>> >...but it is patently clear, and has been conclusively
>> >demonstrated by me on several occasions, that vouchers as currently
>> >envisioned would result in WORSE education for a great many
>> >children.
Ever the healthy skeptic, I say:
>> I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and guess that what you really
>> demonstrated is your ability to form opinions on shaky logic.
Ron takes offense:
>Had you been here or taken the time to look them up, you would not
>have to guess, make an ass of yourself, or attempt insult instead of
>reasoned response. No one who knows me, or has had discussions
>with me, could honestly accuse me of being illogical. I see a lot of
>nastiness in your reply (most of which I cut), but not much in the way
>of dealing with issues; are your arguments so weak as to be unable to
>withstand scrutiny? Is insult your only recourse?
Which I take to be an assurance, from Ron, that he is satisfied with himself as
a logician.
Not knowing Ron, I however must make a judgement based on the quality of his
arguments, which, regrettably, seem not of the highest quality. Witness the
following remarks after he is informed that it is Japan, and not the U.S. that
has the troubled economy:
[Ron:]
>Hint: Who no longer has a television manufacturing industry to speak
>of? Or VCRs?
I’m afraid I have to point out (ever so respectfully) that this is a rather
elementary error in economic reasoning. The principle of comparative
advantage. It is the reason that, I presume, Mr. McDermott does not grow his
own vegetables, slaughter his own cattle, sew his own clothes, build his own
log cabin. Yet he has food, clothing and shelter.
>Who still is getting hammered on autos and came within
>a whisker of not having an auto manufacturing industry?
This is the sort of thing that makes me skeptical of your judgement about your
own ratiocination skills, Ron. Just when was this close shave?
Are you referring to a period in the 1970’s when, the Big 3 not producing the
types of autos preferred by consumers, the Japanese auto-makers stepped in to
fill the void?
My memory of that time is that the consumer was well served by the competition,
and today, Ford, Chrysler, and GM (I am quite happy with my Chevrolet Impala
SS) are healthy. Not to mention that Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, BMW, and others
now build cars in America.
Such history argues that competition might be just the thing to invigorate the
education industry, no?
>Whose
>chipmaking industry went largely down the tubes? Sure, some of the
>big outfits survived, but a lot of the smaller ones, who employed US
>citizens, are gone.
That would be the point, as I said elsewhere. Only those who produce what
consumers want survive. And look what happens, today more Americans are
employed than ever before.
>Do you support "dumping" in order to drive
>competitors out of business? Does this ALWAYS serve the interests
>of the consumer?
I’m unfamiliar with this phenomenon, could you explain how it works (and
provide some examples)?
>Doesn't the consumer ALSO have to work?
I presume that is why the unemployment rate is so low in today’s America.
>Can a business, operating on its own, compete on equal terms with
>a nationally-sponsored and supported foreign business; should it HAVE
>to?
Ahem. I fear you have once again ventured onto thin ice in the view of your
colleagues. Some of them may see an analogy that is unsettling. It is in fact
private enterprise that triumphs, almost every time. The Soviet Union, with
its "nationally-sponsored" industries, was not noticeably successful, nor is
the basket case that "Japan Inc." is today any support for your assertions.
One might reasonably conclude that state-sponsored education is not only unfair
competition for business (private schools) "operating on its own", but perhaps
find oneself asking, "Should it HAVE to?".
>Explain to me how an island nation, with virtually no natural
>resources,
>with a fraction of our industrial might and population, which has to
>import food, fuel,and raw materials could decimate entire industries
>here by competing fairly?
I’m afraid I again have to point out that you have made an elementary error
in economic reasoning. In fact, it is so commonplace that economists have a
name for it; the Physical Fallacy. You do realize that Boeing, GM, Ford, etc.
all have to "import" food, fuel, and raw materials?
And, an island nation has an advantage in that water transport is so much less
costly than overland transport? One thinks of such economic powerhouses
throughout the centuries as Great Britain, Holland, Venice, building wealth on
their access to the sea.
>I'm sure that the tens of thousands of
>formerly employed workers here will be comforted by your philosophy.
I’m sure they don’t need any comfort from me, given the prosperity most of
them now enjoy.
Ron again:
>> >The worst kind of "competition" is one in which one of the
>> >"competitors" is hamstrung, blindfolded, and has one hand tied
>> >behind him while the other is issued pads and skates. A public
>> >school, which has to attempt to educate EVERYONE, cannot
>> >truly remove or exclude ANYONE, is mandated in terms of what
>> >it must teach, etc, cannot "compete" with an entity which can hand-
>> >pick its students...
I again point out what is actually happening with vouchers:
>> [odd that such schools pick the children of the poor]
Ron, missing the point of my question:
>Right.. How many "children of the poor" can you find at Hotchkiss
>and Choat? Who are you kidding?
Or at Sidwell Academy? But that’s not what we have been talking about all
along, is it?
Ron:
>> > That's not "competition".
I innocently ask:
>> Having never experienced it, how do you know?
Ron offers an amusing analogy:
>Having competed as a tennis player, I would not regard dragging a
>chair around the court and covering the doubles lines while my
>opponent
>was unencumbered and playing the singles lines, "competition".
I wonder if Mr Lichtenstein will see the humor? Imagine a State-operated
Public Tennis Authority mandating (under 10th Amendment authority) such
"curricula" as carrying a chair around the court.
Would it be a legitimate defense to the protests of the tennis players
themselves, that such are the standards, and it is up to the players to hit the
ball?
Ron:
>What's
>YOUR experience?
Oh, much more prosaic. I’m a businessman. In order to earn money, I have to
find a need and fill it. I don’t have anything like a monopoly, I have many
competitors who keep me on my toes. If the customers think I do sloppy work,
or I charge too much, I’m out of luck. It’s a dreary existence.
Ron:
>> >However
>> > Either allow public schools the same priviledges as private...
I dream:
>> [Oh brother, would I love to see it!]
Ron responds:
>Actually so would I and most of the teachers I know..
Again, allow me to introduce an elementary economic concept; Revealed
Preferences.
It means that one’s actions speak louder than one’s words. An example of
this would be public school teachers and administrators (and their political
supporters), who talk loudly, and often, about the grand job done by the public
schools, but send their own children to private schools.
Ron:
>> >... or allow only "vouchers" for public schools, or require private
>schools
>> >accepting vouchers to adhere to the same rules as public. Anything else
>> >is ludicrous as "competition".
My good natured question:
>> Speaking as an expert, Ron?
Ron answers:
>That and as someone who understands the meaning of "competition"
>as opposed to "ambush".
Could you demonstrate that in other ways than tennis analogies? I mean, with
consumer welfare in mind? Your prior answer seems preoccupied with
competitors’ welfare.
Our third party had claimed:
>> >> But when you give parents a choice they will seek out the best
>> >> place for their child and not have to watch the wealthy educate their
>> >> children, while the middle class and low income children suffer in
>> >> inadequate systems.
Ron answered:
>> >Noble sentiments, but while this may result in more middle class
>> >students attending private schools, I seriously doubt it will have any
>> >such effect on low-income children.
I again pointed out the obvious:
>> Except it already has, in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and soon Florida. You
>> really need to keep better informed.
Ron graciously concedes error again:
>Test cases geared to low-income children NOW, but only as a prelude
>to extending it later to everyone. It is at THAT point that the
>problems
>will kick in.
Of course the assurances of experts are not to be taken lightly, but it does
seem that test cases are...well...tests! If the case passes the test,
shouldn’t we be interested in such results? For the children, I mean.
Ron:
>By the way, since you're so fond of reading, you might
>want to note that public school students in smaller classes
>outperformed
>the private school transfers (I think this was in Milwaukee). I also
>seem
>to recall that the test wasn't exactly a rousing success there.
A test with proper controls, no doubt.
>The concept of school choice is not a bad one, but doing it in such
>a way as to benefit some while hurting others is unacceptable.
>Setting
>up a universal voucher system would benefit primarily the well-to-do
>while hurting the lower income families.
Which explains the overwhelmingly support for vouchers among the poor? And the
lack of interest in them by the rich and middle class?
>Tell me this; would you support vouchers if they were permanently
>restricted to the poor? Are your motives that pure?
As the driven snow. And yours? Any financial incentives for you in
maintaining the public school monopoly?
> And if you
>can't
>bring yourself to respond civilly this time, don't bother responding..
I trust you appreciated the high tone of my replies.
Let’s do this again soon. Ta ta.
Patrick >>
panther
Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> And for the record, the homeschool population generally falls into the
> upper levels of inherited intelligence. Given what we know about
> learning, it is quite likely that such a population will succeed in
>
MK. a) Do you intend to suggest that we waste tax resources educating
anyone with IQ over 100? b) That these superior, concerned parents
choose to homeschool should say something about that technique.
>
> ...For your information, I am currently
> involved in a study which seeks to determine whether a homeschooled
> variables of curriculum and intelligence are common to both.
> school experience produces better results. But the results are
> preliminary and may not be statistically valid, due to sample size.
>
> Just to let you know that when you control ALL the variables,
> homeschooling does not do as well as you would think.
>
criticism. How can you get around the problem of self-selection. In a
controlled study of homeschool, some parents who want to homeschool
would have to be forbidden, and some who do not want to would have to
be compelled. Would you please describe this experiment: sample
selection, resources, curriculum, and measurement of outcomes.
SUSUPPLY
Choice", article too:
<< The poor favor school choice
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist, 12/27/1999
<< To anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, parents across America -
especially those in urban neighborhoods with wretched public schools - are wild
for school choice. In Milwaukee, where vouchers are making it possible for
8,000 poor students to attend private or parochial school, 62 percent of city
residents support the program, according to a poll commissioned by the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Among black Milwaukeans, the level of support is 74
percent; among Hispanics, 77 percent. And among Milwaukee residents with very
low incomes, a whopping 81 percent favor vouchers.
<< Milwaukee is no fluke. A national poll last year by a leading black think
tank, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, showed that
substantial majorities of blacks in the Northeast (69 percent) and Midwest (65
percent) support vouchers. Broken down by age, support was especially
pronounced among blacks most likely to have school-age children: Nearly 59
percent of those between ages 26 and 50 think vouchers should be widely
available.
<< Parents in Washington, D.C., are ''rampaging toward choice,'' writes Michael
Lynch in the January issue of Reason magazine. Choice in the District of
Columbia means privately funded vouchers from the Washington Scholarship Fund,
which gives more than 1,300 students subsidies of up to $1,700 to help pay for
private school tuition. Frequently, as Lynch's sensitive article shows,
recipients of these vouchers willingly endure privation in order to scrape
together the balance needed to cover tuition and expenses.
[snip of things I have already quoted]
<< There are millions...out there, and no one knows it better than businessmen
Ted Forstmann and John Walton, two donors to the Washington Scholarship Fund
who last year decided to take the idea nationwide. They raised $170 million -
$100 million from their own pockets - to create the Children's Scholarship
Fund, and invited low-income families to apply for 40,000 scholarships that
would defray part of the cost of private school tuition. Winners would be
required to supplement the scholarship with (on average) $1,000 a year of their
own money.
<< To their astonishment, nearly 1.25 million applications came flooding in,
representing almost 1 out of every 50 schoolchildren in America. ''These were
not parents seeking a free ride,'' Forstmann marvels. ''Though their average
income was less than $22,000 a year, they were willing, asking, to make
significant financial sacrifices to take advantage of our partial ...
scholarships. Think of it: 1.25 million applicants asking to pay $1,000 a year
over four years. That's $5 billion that poor families were willing to spend
simply to escape the schools where their children have been relegated.''
<< Which brings us to Al Gore and Bill Bradley, two Democrats who daily profess
their devotion to the poor and trumpet their keen empathy for black Americans.
During their recent debate on ''Meet the Press,'' the two candidates were asked
by Tim Russert whether, if elected, they would support vouchers. Do you suppose
they jumped at the chance to back up Rose Blassingame and the armies of
inner-city parents who are desperate to get their kids out of dangerous and
incompetent government schools?
<< If so, you suppose wrong.
<< Q: ''As president, would you support ... vouchers?''
<< Bradley: ''The answer is, Tim - no, and I will tell you why. I have
supported vouchers on an experimental basis on a number of occasions over 18
years. I do not believe that vouchers are the answer to the problems of public
education.''
<< Gore: ''The reason I oppose vouchers, Tim, is because ... if you drain the
money away from the public schools for private vouchers, then that hurts the
public schools.''
<< Russert tried again. ''Why don't those poor minority moms with their kids,
who could not possibly deal with the chaos of public schools, deserve a
break?''
<< He tried again. ''They have decided the public schools don't work.... Why
not give them a couple hundred bucks to offset the burden of tuition?''
<< But Gore and Bradley can't answer the question. They have tucked themselves
so deeply into the hip pocket of the politically powerful teachers unions -
which, like all monopolists, want to strangle competition - that the cries of
beleaguered parents with kids in lousy schools have become inaudible to them.
<< Their callousness is disgraceful. Neither would allow his own children to
rot in a dysfunctional public school, yet they scorn a reform that would
empower poor parents to rescue their children. What would happen to public
education, they wail, if kids are allowed to opt out? It never occurs to them
to wonder what will happen to the kids if they aren't. >>
Patrick
shel...@my-deja.com
rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> I'm familiar with close to 2 dozen schools locally.
When you compare to independent schools, you can go way beyond local. In
our case, we picked a 2-hour drive time radius.
> > I live in NJ (educated in NYC public schools);
>
> Long enough ago that your recollections are not reflective of current
> conditions?
One of my best friends teaches speech in several schools in Queens. We
do talk.
> > after our experiences with the public schools in our district over the
> > past 15 years, my younger daughter,with our full support and
> > encouragement, left the system and entered a private HS (9th grade).
>
> So I count your familiarity with school districts at two if we exclude
> your own experience in NYC.
I am familiar with districts all over NJ -- My daughter has a choice of
one HS in one district. If you believe educ. stats (I question them
often), NJ is better than most - I believe rated higher than NY
> >Course offerings - Your statement couldn't be further from reality
> > and I'll back that up with the following news article from yesterday's
> > Trenton Times: http://www.nj.com/mercer/times/stories/12-27-
> > VURBEYVB.html
> > The district in this article has many more course offerings than mine
> > (adjoining) -- and our district is much larger, with 3 high schools to
> > their one. Public schools in my district shortchange anyone above
> > average -- unless you're above average in everything, where you're
> > classified as "gifted and talented" and get some recognition (but not a
> > challenging education). In my daughter's private school, she was
> > placed in honors English, a mix of 9th and 10th graders -- and it does
> > provide that extra help in verbal skills needed for the SATs.
> > Regarding enrichment, our local schools provide primarily high
> > competition team sports. My daughter is active in the equestrian
> > program, and is in several school clubs, including the astrology club
> > which meets at 9:30 PM.
>
> So my divorce from reality is established by you citing a couple
> districts local to you? But my citing of a couple dozen local to me
> doesn't count? Why?
Because MANY independent schools in the northeast alone provide course
offerings not available in ANY NJ public school. I can't send my
daughter to your district, but you can send yours to any of the
independent schools who accept her (of course, there's tuition as well as
grants and sacholarships to offset part or all).
> > 4. Curriculum/teaching methods: Admittingly, a single-sex boarding
> > school is not for everybody. 18 months ago, my daughter thought such
> > places existed for punishment; subsequent research, visiting schools,
> > etc. changed everybody's opinions. The academic aspects of most
> > independent schools are unparalleled in public schools.
>
> Not the case in my area, thus an incorrect generalization.
Are you counting parochial schools and independent private schools? If
so, we are talking apples and oranges.
> > Small class
> > sizes are just one aspect that enable instructors to teach more
> > efficiently. Academic support and study time is standardized, which
> > increases student accountability. If the class cooperates, the teacher
> > might take them out for pizza - just like that. There is no age
> > barrier; many middle school girls start HS level foreign language in
> > 7th grade and my daughter's French 2 class has girls spanning 3 grades.
>
> My daughter is in 9th grade and has in two years of foreign languages.
> We offer spanish, french, german, and latin.
Will she beable to take a 6th year when she reaches 12th grade?
> > I'll end with this example -- in 8th grade, my daughter was in a
> > science class that used an outdated computer-dominated syllabus. She
> > challenged the teacher with more current information she read in the
> > newspapers and science magazines. But the computer said she was wrong,
> > so she was wrong. She lost interest, motivation, etc. When we met our
> > daughter's current teachers during parents' weekend, we questioned a
> > report card comment by her French teacher that she didn't participate
> > enough in class. We were surprised and asked our daughter why, and she
> > dsaid she always raised her hand, but wasn't called on. When we met
> > the teacher, we raised this issue, and was told there was an
> > expectation to just chime in. We had to remind the teacher that our
> > daughter just came out of an NJ public school, and would get
> > disciplined for talking out of turn if she did that.
>
> This isn't curriculum; it is class management/teaching technique, and
> every teacher is different.
No, it's curriculum. The tests are computerized, the answers not to be
challenged. If you taught the class, maybe you would try to do something
about it, but you'd probably give up. And most don't try (back to the
competency point you originally raised) because they don't want to rock
the boat.
If you'd like to learn more about independent schools from real people
like us (as opposed to school or union hype), check out the about.com
private schools site at: http://privateschool.about.com/education/
privateschool
Be sure to check out (and hopefully join) the forums -- I think you'll
like the discourse!
Alan Lichtenstein
The "single" examples I posted are hardly singular. HMO's form the
majority of health care units in this country. Although a "single"
example, they represent over 50% of the health care providers, making
them a univerasl. The NYC school system is a system of over 1400
schools, 1.1 million students and over 70,000 employees. This
"singluar" example is in itself a large entity, and not minimal.
A counter
> example may be a "proof" of something being false in math but we all know
> that social systems always have exceptions. If it is your contention that
> schools should be considered an exception to the general rule that private
> enterprise and competition is more efficient than government run and managed
> monopolies you have a long way to go.
You assert that private enterprise is always more efficient than
government run enterprises, and you wish to have us accept this as
fact. Assertions, simply because they emanate from your lips do not
qualify as fact. It would have been better had you posteda few
evidentary examples.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein
Data reported widely by homeschool groups clearly indicates that
homeschooled students consistently out-perform schooled students on
various standardized achievement examinations. This is clearly in
evidence and well-supported. But the homeschool cohort which generates
that data is not heterogeneous, as is the schooled population. It is
above the schooled cohort, and in point of fact, is a homegeneous group
representing the upper echelons of inherited intelligence.
A fair study would be to select a similar cohort in intelligence and
give each group a standard curriculum to be covered in a set period of
time. By so doing, the variable to be tested would be only the manner in
which instruction takes place( although this in itself is not
necessarily true, as we all know that parental involvement, dedication
to task on the part of the individual student, personal responsibility
all play a role, and which WERE NOT CONTROLLED ). Students were
selected in the IQ range of 130-140, given standard curriculua in
Mathematics and Biology and Chemistry. Preliminary results of
standardized achievement tests( NY State Regents Exams in each subject )
reveal that the schooled population out-performs the homeschooled
population when those variables are controlled. But the sample size is
woefully small and will not be statistically valid. The study is
continuing for another two years to follow the chohorts through the
various curricula, but I reiterate, the sample size will not yield
statistically valid results. And there is difficulty in obtaining
samples large enough to yield statistically valid resuls which will
enable us to generalize.
Now this study dealt with high school subjects, and makes no claim about
elementary subjects, again leading to a lack of universality. But
unlike proponents of homeschooling, at least here we recognize the data
for what it is. And these results are not surprising; homeschoolers on
the high school level do not have access to the resources available in
the school building and therefore suffer a loss. That, coupled with the
fact that high school subjects are subject-specific, places
homeschoolers at an additional loss, as the specialists who teach them
in schools are well-grounded in subject matter, another shortcoming of
homeschooling, at least on the high school level.
Alan
Ron McDermott
> In article <87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-OfEoTLwnHkzV@localhost>,
> rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> > That's one of the things; in the larger public schools, the higher
> > level courses go way beyond what the private schools can offer. The
> > other issue is that, on average, the public school teachers are better
> > trained in their areas (you won't find, for example, any physics
> > majors teaching physics at private schools in my area unless it
> > happens to be a nun or brother).
>
> Have you looked at Boston University Academy (http://academy-
> www.bu.edu/)? They list the qualifications of their faculty on
> their site (http://academy-www.bu.edu/info/~faculty.html) and it
> looks pretty impressive to me. I counted three physics degrees
> out of their staff of 17. Students can take courses at the adjacent
> university in their last two years.
That's ONE... I don't see a "general" trend here? Btw, I don't live
near Boston unless one is speaking globally. I'm sure there are some
very fine private schools, as there are ALSO some very fine public
schools. GENERALLY, however, the trend appears to be as I stated.
Ron McDermott
<dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
> Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
> news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-OfEoTLwnHkzV@localhost...
> > On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 04:00:06, "David Gossman"
> > <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
> > > news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-oqTrPVxdmGGu@localhost...
> > > > On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:07:58, "David Gossman"
> > > > <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On the flip side there are studies performed by the Ill Math and
> Science
> > > > > Academy showing that their students outperform students who do not
> > > > > attend IMSA yet have all the other same demographic and intelligence
> > > > > background. That would suggest that at least the better students in
> > > > > our schools can perform significantly better than they do now.
> > > >
> > > > And in THIS I would agree. I agree wholeheartedly that we are
> > > > shortchanging our best students, and wish that this would change.
> > >
> > > How, given the current philosophy of public education?
> >
> > Change it; the current philosophy wasn't handed down on stone tablets
> > 1000 years ago!
>
> Let's try this again. How are you going to change something that has as a
> built in philosophy a resistance to change.
RESISTANCE to change doesn't PREVENT change. If people can lament the
"decline in education", it seems to me that CHANGE is certainly
possible if people have the WILL to make the changes. Further, there
would be a lot of support for meaningful change from TEACHERS if we
could get the public to realize that their "opposition" doesn't come
from the teachers. Anyone who feels that vouchers can, realistically,
be instituted HAS to believe that change is possible, so why is it
that changing the SYSTEM seems so IMpossible to you?
> > > > > 2. Committed teachers who are not members of a union and half of
> > > > > whom are not even certified teachers (many have been college
> > > > > professors).
> > > >
> > > > This is your philosophical take on things, but unionizing is, imo,
> > > > immaterial (especially given that "many college professors" are
> > > > unionized). Further, uncertified teachers aren't, by definition,
> > > > "good"; nor are former college professors necessarily "good" either.
> > >
> > > But the point is that certifications and unions are clearly not
> > > necessary.
> >
> > I disagree with you and so do many others; personal philosophy.
>
> Another thread described the teacher's "unions" in Texas so I guess it
> depends on what you define a union as.
I didn't think that the definition of "union", in the context we're
using it, was that hard to understand? Or do you mean only the AFT
and NEA are "unions"?
> > > Then one must ask if they are a benefit or a hinderance to improving
> > > schools that need improving. My first hand experience provides a
> > > clear answer - not a "philosophical take".
> >
> > As does everyone else's "first hand knowledge", some of which
> > disagrees with yours.
>
> You haven't presented it.
Beg pardon? You made an unqualified statement above. I responded in
like fashion. If my response was "lacking" in some way, then so was
yours. Unions oppose those things which adversely affect their
members. Some of the time that will mean they will get in the way of
things YOU think are "beneficial". Otoh, they also get in the way of
things which are clearly NOT "beneficial" to education, and I cited a
couple elsewhere.
> > > > > At least some of these characteristics would seem to be possible in
> > > > > a private school environment and produce the same improvement in
> > > > > performance.
> > > >
> > > > No more so than in a public school with the proper community backing.
> > > > You're speaking of a PARTICULAR private school setting, not a general
> > > > one. In my area, the public schools outperform the private schools
> > > > given the same student demographics... AND... Provide a far more
> > > > extensive education as well.
> > >
> > > You missed the point. See the "seem possible"? Certainly the current
> > > circumstances of funding and institutional development would only
> > > produce this sort of environment at about the same percentage level
> > > that it is found in the public schools, ie almost zero.
> >
> > First of all, this is in response to the assinine claim (not yours)
> > that entering a private school confers a 50 to 105 point improvement
> > on the SATs. So, no, it is no more "possible" in a private school
> > than in a public school, and since some public schools outperform some
> > private schools (many outperform ALL in my area), the premise is
> > flawed to begin with.
>
> I discribed why it is "possible". You provided nothing to refute my argument
> and instead argue with someone else's point entirely and then claim that is
> a refutation of my point.
First of all, making a bald statement, based upon your personal
philosophy, is not something I consider compelling. Secondly, it is
STILL no more "possible" in a private setting than in a public
setting. Thirdly, this discussion wasn't centered on YOUR point, but
on the post summarized above, which wasn't about "possible", it was an
implied universal.
> > > > Not being familiar with more than a small handful of private schools
> > > > cannot further expound on this idea but would find it of interest to
> > > > see what the private school advocates in the group think of this.
> > > >
> > > > I've taught in both. The difference is in discipline and in the
> > > > student body itself. The instructors in a public school in NY are
> > > > generally superior to those in private schools. The course offerrings
> > > > also tend to be superior. Discipline is better in private schools.
> > > > Students are more serious and more motivated in private schools.
> > > > There is virtually no difference in curriculum, teaching methods, etc,
> > > > between the two. I suspect that things are similar elsewhere.
> > >
> > > Sounds like the clear difference that pushes against private schools in
> > > your experience is the quality of the teachers.
> >
> > That's one of the things; in the larger public schools, the higher
> > level courses go way beyond what the private schools can offer. The
> > other issue is that, on average, the public school teachers are better
> > trained in their areas (you won't find, for example, any physics
> > majors teaching physics at private schools in my area unless it
> > happens to be a nun or brother).
>
> You won't find any physics majors teaching physics in any of the schools in
> our area that I know of.
I'm not surprised. Locally, the public schools have people teaching
physics who AT LEAST have chemistry backgrounds (with decent physics
exposure), and two physics majors. The private schools, otoh, have
much less experienced staff. That's the point.
> Same for chemists. They can all do a lot better in
> industry. This is part of the problem with the unions. The idea that a BS in
> chem is worth no more than a BA in PE is just plain stupid, but that doesn't
> stop the unions from getting such nonsense into the contracts.
I don't know the historical background, so I won't attempt to guess at
how or why things are as they are. It occurs to me that the point
that a union would likely stress is that the job of "teacher" is
essentially the same regardless of background. I DO know that, in
some places, math and science people are now getting "signing bonuses"
(which do not violate contracts, apparently).
> > > Care to reflect on how vouchers would impact that?
> >
> > I can't see any benefit whatsoever.
>
> Because you can't see?
No, because I do not subscribe to your philosophy. One who
consistently seems to see things based upon philosophical
predisposition often "sees" less well than someone who isn't wearing
philosophical blinders.
> > > How could "course offerings also tend to be superior" if
> > > there is "no difference in curriculum"?
> >
> > "Course" and "curriculum" don't mean the same thing. Where COURSES
> > are the same, curriculum is also the same (NY regents is the
> > standard). When comparing courses, one doesn't find AP sciences, for
> > example, in private schools locally.
> >
> That sounds like a rather substantive difference in curriculums to me.
A difference in course offerings, as I said. The argument that
private schools "do it better" suggests that there is something going
on in like courses which is different (and "better"), when, in fact,
that is simply not the case. The (often) superior course offerings in
(many) public schools provide a greater POTENTIAL education for those
who seek one. Thus the high end makes out better in our local public
schools than in the local private schools.
Ron McDermott
> In article <87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-pvqnEni8cjst@localhost>,
> rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 02:19:52, dilly...@aol.com (DillyTaunt) wrote:
> >
> MK. Discussion deletd...
> >
> > > Quite frankly, from a layman's dilettantish viewpoint, it
> > > ain't whether the school is public or private as much as
> > > whether the student-body-on-site is over or under 400.
> > > LARGE schools seem, to me, to produce crappy results
> > > regardless of funding.
> >
> > LARGE schools also tend to be URBAN schools, so one has to wonder
> > whether the "crappy results" are educationally related, or
> > demographically related.
> >
> MK. One might wonder. Speculation is not evidence, however.
That's what we've been telling YOU all this time <g>! We've been over
this "large school = urban area/minority student, small school =
suburban area/white student" issue before; I'm not sure we're going to
shed any additional light on it at THIS point?!
> > > >In virtually every category of identifiable indicators of
> > > >academic success (income level, two-parent families,
> > > >parental education level, racial makeup, and on and on),
> > > >private school students, on average, possess positive
> > > >indicators to a much greater extent than do public school
> > > >students.
> > >
> > > Well... yeah. Mostly. But mostly that data is about schools
> > > supported by the sufficiently affluent. A few voucher
> > > experiments (undertaken over great opposition) try to
> > > control the variables you mention -- often using the
> > > lottery-slotting techniques _I_ mention. Would you agree
> > > that several such experiments in various states and
> > > districts and venues are necessary before we can say, one
> > > way or the other? OR do you have divine inspiration such
> > > that no experiments are necessary?
> >
> MK. Differences in SES make less difference to student performance in
> independent or parochial schools, in Herman Brustaert's study of schools
> in Belgium.
Belgium isn't the US, and dredging up little factoids which happen
(coincidentally?) to bolster your SPECULATIONS isn't compelling
evidence, I'm afraid.
> > Note: This is not about MY point of view, but about the assinine
> > claim that entering a private school confers a 50 to 105 point
> > increase in SAT score. THAT is unsupportable.
> >
> MK. Why do you find this unlikely?
The claim was a universal one; both you and David prefer to frame the
question as one of "possibility". Sorry, I'm not biting. If you wish
to support this particular assinine claim, then let's see the
evidence, not SPECULATION.
> >...The naive claim that
> > private schools do a "better" job is similarly unsupported when one
> > considers populations which are demographically comparable. Since I
> > consider vouchers, as envisioned, to be injurious to education in
> > general, I oppose such "experiments". I'd be happy to see public
> > schools which were allowed to operate like private schools, however
> > (charter schools).
> >
> MK. Would you define the terms "Public school" and "private school",
> pleasse?
No; the definitions are clearly understood by all here.
> > > I notice Ron didn't mention campus size. Would you agree,
> > > sir, that campus size (students per facility) is an
> > > "identifiable indicator of academic success"?
> >
> > I'm not sure that it is. It SEEMS to be, but this involves, once
> > again, comparisons between populations which are not demographically
> > comparable in the FIRST place! Large schools tend to be urban and
> > high minority populated, so there are simply too many other factors
> > involved to make such a blanket statement. I'll say this much; the
> > high school in my district has a wonderful reputation and turns out
> > high quality graduates - It is the 10th largest high school in NY (and
> > is only 10-12th grade!), and is 50% minority. In this instance, the
> > trend isn't borne out.
> >
> > > Large schools and school systems tend to have another
> > > problem so far unaddressed here. Cost-inefficiency.
> >
> > A claim absent any real proof.
> >
> MK. Depends on what you call proof.
Proof: A way of showing BEYOND DOUBT the truth of a statement.
< multiple variable correlations deleted as irrelevent >
> > > Leaving aside for the moment whether (small) private
> > > schools are "Better" in teaching reading, writing, and
> > > 'rithmetic... It is often (not always) true that privately
> > > funded schools spend less-per-student to achieve their
> > > results (whatever those are.)
> >
> > Are you sure this reflects actual COSTS, or merely tuition? And we're
> > throwing out the religious institutions (which are subsidized and in
> > which at least some of the staff work virtually for nothing) since
> > they have little or nothing in common with the costs of operating a
> > public school? And we're not including private schools which do not
> > teach special ed, of course, because everyone knows that special ed
> > inflates apparent average costs? Or are we ignoring all that in
> > making this comparison?
> >
> MK. Why ignore it?
He says, while proceeding to ignore it <g>...
> Does it really matter -why- someone will teach
> algebra for less than the NEA would like its members to accept?
Which, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the point above.
> > > What keeps large public schools from breaking themselves
> > > up into smaller organizations?
> >
> > Nothing other than needing more facilities, more staff, etc, which
> > would RAISE costs not lower them...
> >
> MK. Large systems are more bureaucratic, not less.
Multiple small systems are often more costly than integrated systems.
You just shift costs to other places.
Ron McDermott
> Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> replies:
>
> >LARGE schools also tend to be URBAN schools, so one has to
> >wonder whether the "crappy results" are educationally
> >related, or demographically related.
>
> Large ~= Urban is a valid tendency. However, I stress the
> example I originally cited (from local experience) compared
> Brock, TX (small,poor, rural) to University Park, TX
> (small, rich, central-urban). Both not-crappy. My initial
> impression is that the common factor is school size. It
> would, I agree, be helpful to find a large rural ethnic-mix
> low-income school to compare to a similar urban one.
It would be MORE than helpful if one wishes to claim that only the
SIZE of the school is an issue.
> What I'm NOT aware of is a controlled study to confirm (or
> refute) my general impression that the small schools
> achieve better results at less cost. Any thoughts on
> finding such?
Mr. Powell is a veritible storehouse of information of this kind;
perhaps he can help. I suspect the data would be inconsistent if one
WERE able to control all the variables involved. While a larger
district would have more administration, I'm not sure that the growth
in administration would be disproportionate to the growth in staff and
students. I suspect that, on the other side of the coin, operating
multiple small systems would involved redundancy in services/staff
which might be minimized by incorporation. I doubt you'd get an
easily descernable trend.
> Now, I'm a newbie in this forum. Sometimes posters are
> permitted to generalize, and sometimes posters are attacked
> for the attempt to generalize. When is which proper?
In theory if someone challenges your statement you would be expected
to support it with evidence. LOGICAL discussion, even speculation, is
"allowed", but don't expect that others are going to accept YOUR logic
<g>.
> Carrying on:
>
> Ron > >private school students, on average, possess
> > > positive indicators to a much greater extent than do
> > > public school students.
> >
> Me > A few voucher experiments (undertaken over great
> > opposition) try to control the variables you mention --
> > Would you agree that several such experiments in various
> > states and districts and venues are necessary before we
> > can say, one way or the other?
>
> Ron > This is not about MY point of view, but about the
> > assinine claim that entering a private school confers a
> > 50 to 105 point increase in SAT score.
>
> Oh.
>
> Is that a "no"?
It's an indication that you're raising a different issue. Since that
IS the case, I'd prefer to divorce it from the "50 to 105 point"
nonsense.
> I was kind of interested in your point of view. I thought
> if I could understand what you and other various people on
> all sides of the issue thought, WHY they thought it, what
> experiences they brought in, and what (second-hand) sources
> they adduced, I might either be obliged to change my own
> mind, or be better informed and more persuasive when the
> issue was discussed seriously in my locale.
Tell you what; you frame the question(s) you want to ask, post it, and
I'll be happy to discuss it with you - ok?
> By the way, I missed the post where this 50 point SAT
> strawman was first raised. (I have the crippled AOL
> newsreader...) I came in where Wally Williams asked an
> open-ended question, and Dr Beldin cited participation in
> Algebra classes. When and by whom were SAT scores
> mentioned?
A couple "rounds" ago by John Knight (I think).
> Ron >Since I consider vouchers, as envisioned, to be
> > injurious to education in general, I oppose such
> > "experiments".
>
> Hmm. I guess that WAS a "no". Okay. Again, I seek only
> to understand. Do you oppose experimentation, as harmful,
> in general?
Nope.
> Say somebody comes up with a new trendy
> curricular theory.
Happens all the time. Usually gets tried out.
> Should it be tried, even though your
> experience tends to suggest that most such trendy theories
> are failures that leave students worse off than before?
I don't recall saying this.
> Or, are you saying that some experiments are worthwhile,
> and some not, and that vouchers fall into the latter
> category?
Vouchers aren't what I'd call an educational experiment. They are
predicated on several things which I consider to be questionable:
1. That private schools do a "better" job than public.
2. That the "average cost per student" has intrinsic meaning.
3. That lower tuition means lower cost.
4. That parents have a "right" to public funds for personal choices.
5. That no harm ensues to remaining public students.
6. That this ultimately benefits poor people and minorities.
7. That public schools can't be changed.
8. That this constitutes "competition".
Further, vouchers are a one-way street in the sense that once a
precedent is set, there's no turning back - for better or worse.
> >I'd be happy to see public schools which were allowed to
> >operate like private schools, however (charter schools).
>
> Here, we are in sweet accord. Charters tend to be smaller
> and have less overhead, I think.
For me, the key issue is that one can truly EXPERIMENT without
dragging in philosphical issues or doing harm to kids who remain in
the existing public schools. The fact that the charter schools are
STILL "public" keeps the number down to a point where the short-term
financial impact on existing schools is probably manageable (plus many
charter schools would be formerly-existing public schools).
> Me > > I notice Ron didn't mention campus size. Would you
> > >agree, sir, that campus size (students per facility) is
> > >an "identifiable indicator of academic success"?
>
> Ron> I'm not sure that it is. It SEEMS to be, but this
> > involves, once again, comparisons between populations
> > which are not demographically comparable in the FIRST
> > place!
>
> It seems to me that confirming or refuting the conjecture
> (on which we agree) calls for experiment. (Upon which we
> may yet be quibbling.)
Quibbling makes the day go faster <g>!
> >I'll say this much; the high school in my district has a
> >wonderful reputation and turns out high quality graduates
> >-It is the 10th largest high school in NY (and is only 10-
> >12th grade!) and is 50% minority. In this instance, the
> >trend isn't borne out.
>
> Good. Great. Congratulations. Uhhmmm... How do you
> happen to _measure_ the quality of your graduates?
Standardized testing, AP credits, college acceptances, etc. The
usual. You go on to ask specifics, which is only reasonable, and I
don't have them at hand, sorry.
> _I_ like to use number-
> per-hundred of "National Merit Scholars" in a graduating
> class.
Winners, semifinalists, letters of commendation? I might be able to
pull this information together. This is a high-IQ instrument, btw, so
you are looking at IQ as much as anything here. The point I was
trying to make is that we have facilities which confer an excellent
education to those who seek it out and have the ability. We are not
an institution of mediocrity across the board.
> Medical analogy again. American medicine is (generally)
> well admired. We admit, however, there are embarrassing
> exceptions (malpracticing doctors, patients denied care.)
> Exceptions may or may not affect reputations. I'm still
> glad to hear of a well-reputed school and trust your
> reputation is well-founded. (And offer general good wishes
> for high-quality, well-reputed hospitals in your area, as
> well. )
Thank you <g>! Anyway, we have our fair share of acceptances to
Harvard, MIT, Cornell, RPI, etc, so I guess we're well-respected.
> Me> > Large schools and school systems tend to have another
> > > problem so far unaddressed here. Cost-inefficiency.
>
> Ron> A claim absent any real proof.
>
> The Stossel piece isn't "real"? Okay.
>
> Check, if you like,
>
> http://pieofplano.freeservers.com/costper.htm
Without seeking this out, the name implies a "cost per student" ratio
or something similar. Is this the case?
> for one (skilled parent's) analysis/comparison of his
> (large, rich, sucessful, suburban) districts cost-per-pupil
> to other comparable demographic areas. Let me know what
> trend you think can be inferred from the state-wide data.
"Cost per pupil" <sigh>... An artificial mathematical construct which
confers very little real information. It's affected by demographics,
debt service, etc. There are so many variables involved in "cost per
student", that isolating ONE and claiming a relationship is
meaningless.
> Me > privately funded schools spend less-per-student to
> > achieve their results (whatever those are.)
>
> Ron>Are you sure this reflects actual COSTS, or merely
> >tuition?
>
> Well, I said what they SPEND... but your point about my
> sureness is valid. I'm _never_ sure.
All most people see is the tuition, which doesn't necessarily reflect
actual cost. Further, most private schools are educating the least
expensive kids; ie, kids of two parent families, with generally higher
income and educational levels, no special ed, no discipline cases,
etc, etc. Apples and trucks.
> Doesn't keep me from making reasonable conjectures and
> trying research, experiment, discussion, etc to refute or
> confirm.
The key is what is "reasonable".
> Ron> And we're throwing out the religious institutions
> >(which are subsidized and in which at least some of the
> >staff work virtually for nothing) since they have little
> >or nothing in common with the costs of operating a public
> >school?
>
> Oh, now, PLEASE! Let's see, traits in common:
>
> The real estate
Donated versus purchased/or paid for by donation versus supported by
taxes? Fixed size (generally) versus requiring adjustment to
population effects?
> The buildings within which schooling is done.
Public school districts have to adjust to accomodate population,
private do not. As a result, public districts are almost constantly
building and renovating.
> Teachers.
In religious institutions, a number of the staff work virtually for
free. Since the remainder of the staff can be hired without
certification (I think this is accurate in most places), one can hire
people for less (and often get exactly in service what is paid as
salary).
> Support staff (janitors, engineers, clerks).
A lot of supposition here, and a lot of it untrue in most places.
Janitors, for example, are easily removed. I think you're right about
understaffing in private schools. You gave this a small advantage to
private; I think that you let your philosophical predispositions lead
you to THAT one <g>.
> Administration:
As we go on here, it seems as if you are moving away from
evenhandedness toward personal perception. Administration DOES cost
more in public schools. Partially because the schools are bigger,
partially because the state requires more OF the schools, partially
because the religious private schools typically have members of the
religious order working in that capacity for virtually nothing. We
ALSO seem to be drifting from whether or not they are truly comparable
to whether they are "better", and THAT is a personal judgement
unrelated to the issue at hand.
> Ancillary resources: Buses, garages, stadiums,
> auditoriums, administration buildings, --- here Ron is
> exactly correct. The parochial schools have little in
> common with public.
Thank you. Note that on this list (in which you seem to wish to
stress what you may see as "frivolous" items) there are ALSO greater
educational facilities; more extensive science labs, more computers,
we have a planetarium, scanning electron microscope, seismograph, etc.
> If we trim non-academic investments of large public schools
> --like buses
Which, btw, public districts HAVE to provide, and HAVE to provide for
"private" school kids as well...
> and stadiums and acres of parking lot and
> warehouses full of office supplies -- out of the mix then
> the budgets of small (private or charter) schools and the
> district in general become much more comparable.
You can't cut buses, so let's push that one aside. So you want a bare
bones district to compare with a private school? So you ALSO, then,
agree that public and private schools are NOT, generally comparable?
We could have saved a lot of writing and reading then! But you wished
to emphasize, for philosophical reasons, what you consider to be
"waste". Let me just point out that some of the stuff you want to
cut: stadium, swimming pool (presumeably), athletic facilities, etc
are all things that the public WANTS! Further, a lot of the
administration, which you feel is unnecessary, is dictated by the
STATE and ITS demands, so these are things which ALSO are going to be
hard to cut!
> Ron> And we're not including private schools which do not
> > teach special ed, of course, because everyone knows that
> > special ed inflates apparent average costs? Or are we
> > ignoring all that in making this comparison?
>
> *sigh*. That' a sore subject. If I _had_ solid data; if it
> were possible to obtain it, you can be sure I'd share.
Special ed IS a can of worms in many respects, but it exists, it IS
expensive, it IS mandated to the public schools, and it raises the
apparent costs.
> I _conjecture_ that the expenses associated with special ed
> in public school are inflated. The point about the services
> offered remains valid. But USE of special education moneys
> appears to often include purposes beyond reaching out to
> help kids beyond the scope of the regular class. That
> muddies the waters to a point where reasonable people can
> get frothingly frustrated in the discussion.
Fair enough, but those figures ARE there and influence the apparent
costs.
> We may need to take the issue to a separate thread.
I don't know enough about it to be of much help.
> > What keeps large public schools from breaking themselves
> > up into smaller organizations?
>
> > Nothing other than needing more facilities, more staff,
> > etc, which would RAISE costs not lower them...
>
> Let me rephrase: How do universities break themselves up...
> (actually, STAY broken up) into discreet colleges while
> sharing dorms, clerical staff, libraries, etc?
I guess I'm still not understanding what you're driving at? You want
to have multiple school districts sharing the same facilities? How is
that different from incorporation?
> Right now, though, you have me totally curious. If you
> do NOT conjecture smaller schools have the advantage,
> where is your support for charter schools coming from?
Small doesn't equate to charter. I know that charter schools will
tend to be small, but that isn't the issue to me. The problem with
public schools, to my way of thinking, is that discipline has been
removed by the state, politicians, local boards, the courts, and the
public at large. Since charter schools have the ability to avoid the
existing mandates, one could set up demanding, disciplined schools in
which the paradigm for students can revert to "better times". They
might, FINALLY, give teachers a real SAY in what goes on.
> Since we agree in that conclusion, I wonder what basis in
> common we have for it. You say you wish public schools
> were "allowed to operate like private schools"... in what
> ways? What changes would you import from the private
> school model were you appointed Superintendent over public
> chartered schools?
Private schools have three REAL advantages (as opposed to PERCEIVED
advantages): First of all, they can choose their students and remove
students (there may be a limit to a charter school's ability to DO
this). Secondly, they enforce good discipline (which often depends on
the ability to REMOVE students). Thirdly, they can set up whatever
level of academic demands they wish (which goes back to shoosing their
students). Imo, these are the keys to success for kids (and their
parents) who WANT a good education for their kids. The other side of
the coin is how to handle those kids who DON'T, and who, therefore, do
NOT end up with much of an education. Perhaps there's an answer in
charter schools for this problem as well, but I don't hold out much
hope for that. Basically, then, I'm looking for a return to
disciplined, academically rigorous institutions, and I see charter
schools as a possible vehicle for getting there.
Joni J Rathbun
On 1 Jan 2000, Ron McDermott wrote:
> > >LARGE schools also tend to be URBAN schools, so one has to
> > >wonder whether the "crappy results" are educationally
> > >related, or demographically related.
> >
> > Large ~= Urban is a valid tendency. However, I stress the
> > example I originally cited (from local experience) compared
> > Brock, TX (small,poor, rural) to University Park, TX
> > (small, rich, central-urban). Both not-crappy. My initial
> > impression is that the common factor is school size. It
> > would, I agree, be helpful to find a large rural ethnic-mix
> > low-income school to compare to a similar urban one.
>
> It would be MORE than helpful if one wishes to claim that only the
> SIZE of the school is an issue.
>
There have been quite a few studies on school size over the
years. You can find some info at:
www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/index
I wasn't able to get into the ERIC Digests today using ppp/Netscape
for some reason, but I was able to get thru via unix/Lynx.
Or you can search the ERIC database at http://ericir.syr.edu/
for summaries to additional research.
With only a quick glance, it appears size makes a difference,
especially for low income and minority students.
David Gossman
It is a single example in the context of the discussion. The fact that
you can point to more than one instance of the single example is only
marginally relevant. The NYC school system has never been outside of the
control of government bureaucrats hardly makes it an example of anything
other than the ineptness of the management.
>
> A counter
> > example may be a "proof" of something being false in math but we all know
> > that social systems always have exceptions. If it is your contention that
> > schools should be considered an exception to the general rule that private
> > enterprise and competition is more efficient than government run and managed
> > monopolies you have a long way to go.
>
> You assert that private enterprise is always more efficient than
> government run enterprises, and you wish to have us accept this as
> fact. Assertions, simply because they emanate from your lips do not
> qualify as fact. It would have been better had you posteda few
> evidentary examples.
>
I assert that they are generally more efficient and that when they are
not the cause can usually be traced to some other form of government
interference. The evidence is the history of the modern world and the
fall of totalitarianism and socialism that continues to this day. I
hardly think that a usenet discussion is a place to perform a
comprehensive review of western history. If you are not aware of the
examples then you simply demonstrate your own ignorance by asking for
them.
David Gossman
David Gossman
Because I have worked on the inside of the system to produce change and
seen just how difficult and slow it can be. Our world is moving much to
fast to tolerate such a system for long.
>
> > > > > > 2. Committed teachers who are not members of a union and half of
> > > > > > whom are not even certified teachers (many have been college
> > > > > > professors).
> > > > >
> > > > > This is your philosophical take on things, but unionizing is, imo,
> > > > > immaterial (especially given that "many college professors" are
> > > > > unionized). Further, uncertified teachers aren't, by definition,
> > > > > "good"; nor are former college professors necessarily "good" either.
> > > >
> > > > But the point is that certifications and unions are clearly not
> > > > necessary.
> > >
> > > I disagree with you and so do many others; personal philosophy.
> >
> > Another thread described the teacher's "unions" in Texas so I guess it
> > depends on what you define a union as.
>
> I didn't think that the definition of "union", in the context we're
> using it, was that hard to understand? Or do you mean only the AFT
> and NEA are "unions"?
The other thread discussed an open shop state where the teachers do not
even have the right to strike. They are more of a professional
organization than a union. That is all I was referring to. Perhaps your
disagreement with me based on your personal philosophy is based on a
different definition of a union.
>
> > > > Then one must ask if they are a benefit or a hinderance to improving
> > > > schools that need improving. My first hand experience provides a
> > > > clear answer - not a "philosophical take".
> > >
> > > As does everyone else's "first hand knowledge", some of which
> > > disagrees with yours.
> >
> > You haven't presented it.
>
> Beg pardon? You made an unqualified statement above. I responded in
> like fashion. If my response was "lacking" in some way, then so was
> yours. Unions oppose those things which adversely affect their
> members. Some of the time that will mean they will get in the way of
> things YOU think are "beneficial". Otoh, they also get in the way of
> things which are clearly NOT "beneficial" to education, and I cited a
> couple elsewhere.
I am glad to see that you realize that by opposing things that adversely
affect their members that unions might have a negative effect on
educational quality. That's progress. Since I have made my point perhaps
you can point out to me the advantage of setting up an organization to
negotiate for salaries where the benefit of such negotiation primarily
rests in the union leadership. When I negotiated with a teacher's union
and wanted a very large increase in starting teacher's salaries (we were
a growing district and needed to attract quality young teachers) the
union fought the idea. They also fought the idea of more school days per
year even though it was linked to appropriate salary increases.
I made a point about why it was "possible" (and pointed out the
differences that exist between a normal public school and private
schools that make it "possible" via the example of a nontypical public
school). You disagreed and now claim you were not arguing about what is
"possible". I'll take that as an admission of an erroneous response to
my comment on your part.
>
> > > > > Not being familiar with more than a small handful of private schools
> > > > > cannot further expound on this idea but would find it of interest to
> > > > > see what the private school advocates in the group think of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've taught in both. The difference is in discipline and in the
> > > > > student body itself. The instructors in a public school in NY are
> > > > > generally superior to those in private schools. The course offerrings
> > > > > also tend to be superior. Discipline is better in private schools.
> > > > > Students are more serious and more motivated in private schools.
> > > > > There is virtually no difference in curriculum, teaching methods, etc,
> > > > > between the two. I suspect that things are similar elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like the clear difference that pushes against private schools in
> > > > your experience is the quality of the teachers.
> > >
> > > That's one of the things; in the larger public schools, the higher
> > > level courses go way beyond what the private schools can offer. The
> > > other issue is that, on average, the public school teachers are better
> > > trained in their areas (you won't find, for example, any physics
> > > majors teaching physics at private schools in my area unless it
> > > happens to be a nun or brother).
> >
> > You won't find any physics majors teaching physics in any of the schools in
> > our area that I know of.
>
> I'm not surprised. Locally, the public schools have people teaching
> physics who AT LEAST have chemistry backgrounds (with decent physics
> exposure), and two physics majors. The private schools, otoh, have
> much less experienced staff. That's the point.
So you are now the one projecting the specific example of your situation
on the rest of the US - glad to see that this is the basis for your
logic.
>
> > Same for chemists. They can all do a lot better in
> > industry. This is part of the problem with the unions. The idea that a BS in
> > chem is worth no more than a BA in PE is just plain stupid, but that doesn't
> > stop the unions from getting such nonsense into the contracts.
>
> I don't know the historical background, so I won't attempt to guess at
> how or why things are as they are. It occurs to me that the point
> that a union would likely stress is that the job of "teacher" is
> essentially the same regardless of background. I DO know that, in
> some places, math and science people are now getting "signing bonuses"
> (which do not violate contracts, apparently).
You are right. The claim is that the job is the same, completely
ignoring the basic law of supply and demand. A typical union response to
reality. (And another way that unions get in the way - you are starting
to understand.)
>
> > > > Care to reflect on how vouchers would impact that?
> > >
> > > I can't see any benefit whatsoever.
> >
> > Because you can't see?
>
> No, because I do not subscribe to your philosophy. One who
> consistently seems to see things based upon philosophical
> predisposition often "sees" less well than someone who isn't wearing
> philosophical blinders.
No subscription to any philosophy is required, just an awareness of
reality. Sounds like you were describing yourself. (Of course some
philosophies are based on a denial of reality - those are always the
most amusing.)
>
> > > > How could "course offerings also tend to be superior" if
> > > > there is "no difference in curriculum"?
> > >
> > > "Course" and "curriculum" don't mean the same thing. Where COURSES
> > > are the same, curriculum is also the same (NY regents is the
> > > standard). When comparing courses, one doesn't find AP sciences, for
> > > example, in private schools locally.
> > >
> > That sounds like a rather substantive difference in curriculums to me.
>
> A difference in course offerings, as I said. The argument that
> private schools "do it better" suggests that there is something going
> on in like courses which is different (and "better"), when, in fact,
> that is simply not the case. The (often) superior course offerings in
> (many) public schools provide a greater POTENTIAL education for those
> who seek one. Thus the high end makes out better in our local public
> schools than in the local private schools.
Like it or not a significant difference in course offerings will result
in a difference in curriculum. You contradicted yourself and now you are
trying to squirm out of it by shifting the discussion - a rather
transparent and amusing tactic.
David Gossman
David Gossman
Ron McDermott wrote:
>
> The claim was a universal one; both you and David prefer to frame the
> question as one of "possibility". Sorry, I'm not biting. If you wish
> to support this particular assinine claim, then let's see the
> evidence, not SPECULATION.
>
This is rather amusing logic. You won't accept any evidence outside the
context of the US system. You must recognize that the US system cannot
provide evidence for something that does not exist because that is the
way the system is set up. And then you demand that something be more
than a "possibility". Surely you must be able to see why you have
developed a self fulfilling philosophy that will deny any attempt to
change the existing system based on the very same logic you have just
presented.
David Gossman
m_...@my-deja.com
rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:05:53, m_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> > > That's one of the things; in the larger public schools, the higher
> > > level courses go way beyond what the private schools can offer.
The
> > > other issue is that, on average, the public school teachers are
better
> > > trained in their areas (you won't find, for example, any physics
> > > majors teaching physics at private schools in my area unless it
> > > happens to be a nun or brother).
> >
> > www.bu.edu/)? They list the qualifications of their faculty on
> > their site (http://academy-www.bu.edu/info/~faculty.html) and it
> > looks pretty impressive to me. I counted three physics degrees
> > out of their staff of 17. Students can take courses at the adjacent
> > university in their last two years.
>
> That's ONE... I don't see a "general" trend here? Btw, I don't live
> near Boston unless one is speaking globally. I'm sure there are some
> very fine private schools, as there are ALSO some very fine public
> schools.
My local experience is that the private schools (the larger ones)
are about the same as the best public schools. We have very good
private schools available but they are 1 to 1.5 hours away. I would
like to see a trend where colleges start up private school branches
as Boston University has done.
> GENERALLY, however, the trend appears to be as I stated.
I will take your word on this for your area.
m_...@my-deja.com
Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote:
> Data reported widely by homeschool groups clearly indicates that
> homeschooled students consistently out-perform schooled students on
> various standardized achievement examinations. This is clearly in
> evidence and well-supported. But the homeschool cohort which
generates
> that data is not heterogeneous, as is the schooled population.
Your evidence for this? There are home schooling mailing lists for
minorities, pagans, religious folks, non-religious folks, learning
disabled folks, ADHD folks, gifted folks, unschoolers, autistic
folks, etc. What do you mean by not heterogeneous?
> It is above the schooled cohort, and in point of fact, is a
> homegeneous group
Could you post the source of this "fact"?
> representing the upper echelons of inherited intelligence.
Even if the "fact" were demonstrated, I don't see how you make
the leap to this.
> A fair study would be to select a similar cohort in intelligence and
> give each group a standard curriculum to be covered in a set period of
> time. By so doing, the variable to be tested would be only the manner
in
> which instruction takes place( although this in itself is not
> necessarily true, as we all know that parental involvement, dedication
> to task on the part of the individual student, personal responsibility
> all play a role, and which WERE NOT CONTROLLED ). Students were
> selected in the IQ range of 130-140, given standard curriculua in
> Mathematics and Biology and Chemistry. Preliminary results of
> standardized achievement tests( NY State Regents Exams in each subject
)
> reveal that the schooled population out-performs the homeschooled
> population when those variables are controlled. But the sample size
is
> woefully small and will not be statistically valid. The study is
> continuing for another two years to follow the chohorts through the
> various curricula, but I reiterate, the sample size will not yield
> statistically valid results. And there is difficulty in obtaining
> samples large enough to yield statistically valid resuls which will
> enable us to generalize.
Why would one use the same curricula? It would seem to me to make
more sense to use the best curricular materials for the individual
student. Or to use college courses for the home schooling student
as this better reflects actual practice.
> Now this study dealt with high school subjects, and makes no claim
about
> elementary subjects, again leading to a lack of universality. But
> unlike proponents of homeschooling, at least here we recognize the
data
> for what it is. And these results are not surprising; homeschoolers
on
> the high school level do not have access to the resources available in
> the school building and therefore suffer a loss.
I suspect that this varies by state. Some states don't permit access
to school activities and courses. Some states require that districts
provide access to courses and activities. And some states leave it up
to the local district to decide what they want to offer. Our local
district makes classes, activities and curricular materials available
to home schoolers on an as available basis. One of the neighboring
towns does the same thing.
Homeschoolers are also free to take college courses to cover these
subjects too, though this is typically at their expense.
> That, coupled with the
> fact that high school subjects are subject-specific, places
> homeschoolers at an additional loss, as the specialists who teach them
> in schools are well-grounded in subject matter, another shortcoming of
> homeschooling, at least on the high school level.
Again, there are a lot of stock home schooling answers to this supposed
problem that can be found in common home schooling and educational
literature.
m_...@my-deja.com
>
> On 1 Jan 2000 16:12:13 GMT, rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott)
> wrote:
> >A difference in course offerings, as I said. The argument that
> >private schools "do it better" suggests that there is something going
> >on in like courses which is different (and "better"), when, in fact,
> >that is simply not the case. The (often) superior course offerings
in
> >(many) public schools provide a greater POTENTIAL education for those
> >who seek one. Thus the high end makes out better in our local public
> >schools than in the local private schools.
We do have a large private high school locally. It is mainly used by
many of the smaller towns that don't have a high school or that have
capacity problems.
> This is part of the problem in these comparisons. Ime, the larger
> public high schools have more and better course offerings on the high
> end than the small private college prep schools. While those schools
> offer *some* of the AP courses they did not offer the variety nor did
> the offer the level of courses that could be offered in the two large
> suburban high schools near my home.
I've noticed this too at some of the elite schools in the area which
is why I question Alberto on this point from time to time.
> These public schools also offered more tutoring, more special
> education services, more counselling and more general help for the
> students who were *behind* then college prep private schools.
> The services are often not as helpful as they should be but in a large
> public school setting, they are funded and more available then they
> can be in a small private school
This would be true in a small public school too. Private schools start
out with a funding disadvantage so it's not surprising that they either
have to go after those that can pay or offer fewer courses and support.
> They also did not and could not offer the variety of courses in art,
> drama, music, computers and other non-standard curricula that were
> offered open to all kids in those schools.
>
> Question here for those who wish to pursue it. What actually would
> a core curriculum that would allow our high school students to be
> considered fully adult participating citizens without further
> schooling look like? IOW, what is the *core curriculum* that we think
> should be actually included in any high school? Must it be a
> preparation for college?
I read an article in Boston College magazine some time ago from the
author of a book on how Catholic schools were run. It said that they
used a core curriculum and that they tended towards an egalitarian
approach.
m_...@my-deja.com
> And the situation is different in every area of the country as both of
> you well know. In terms of physics here, there were actual physics
> majors teaching (not many, but a few), but even when those teaching
> were not *physics majors,* there backgrounds were certainly adequate
> to teaching high school physics - in order to be endorsed in any given
> science, the certificate included the equivalent of 30 hours of that
> science I believe.
Sounds reasonable. But what about college physics?
> The teachers in the suburban districts where my children went to
> school were qualified enough to produce many students who won NSF
> competitions in both Physics and Chemistry (the AP chem-phys program
> there is a model for others around the country and its students
> compare favorable with those who attend IMSA and the Science
> Academies in New York City.
I haven't seen anything like this level of quality locally. Surburban
or otherwise.
> My son was a B student in this program and he found that he had much
> more background that the valedictorians of many small private schools
> when he was a freshman in college. The fact is that what is needed is
> a wider dissemination of programs that we know work to other public
> schools rather than some blanket condemnation of *all* public schools.
It's generally a money issue. What has happened in my state is that
the state is redistributing funds from some districts to others. Of
course the districts that are losing money (in many cases, large
amounts) are suing the state.
What I'd like to see is more colleges offering courses to high school
students that want to take higher level courses. This seems like a more
efficient approach given that the expertise is already there.
Dorothy Sacks
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 04:47:24, "David Gossman"
><dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>
>> Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
>> news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-OfEoTLwnHkzV@localhost...
>> > On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 04:00:06, "David Gossman"
>> > <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-oqTrPVxdmGGu@localhost...
>> > > > On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:07:58, "David Gossman"
>> > > > <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>> > > >
<snip>
>> > > How could "course offerings also tend to be superior" if
>> > > there is "no difference in curriculum"?
>> >
>> > "Course" and "curriculum" don't mean the same thing. Where COURSES
>> > are the same, curriculum is also the same (NY regents is the
>> > standard). When comparing courses, one doesn't find AP sciences, for
>> > example, in private schools locally.
>> >
>> That sounds like a rather substantive difference in curriculums to me.
>
>A difference in course offerings, as I said. The argument that
>private schools "do it better" suggests that there is something going
>on in like courses which is different (and "better"), when, in fact,
>that is simply not the case. The (often) superior course offerings in
>(many) public schools provide a greater POTENTIAL education for those
>who seek one. Thus the high end makes out better in our local public
>schools than in the local private schools.
This is part of the problem in these comparisons. Ime, the larger
public high schools have more and better course offerings on the high
end than the small private college prep schools. While those schools
offer *some* of the AP courses they did not offer the variety nor did
the offer the level of courses that could be offered in the two large
suburban high schools near my home.
These public schools also offered more tutoring, more special
education services, more counselling and more general help for the
students who were *behind* then college prep private schools.
The services are often not as helpful as they should be but in a large
public school setting, they are funded and more available then they
can be in a small private school
They also did not and could not offer the variety of courses in art,
drama, music, computers and other non-standard curricula that were
offered open to all kids in those schools.
Question here for those who wish to pursue it. What actually would
a core curriculum that would allow our high school students to be
considered fully adult participating citizens without further
schooling look like? IOW, what is the *core curriculum* that we think
should be actually included in any high school? Must it be a
preparation for college?
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
source unknown
Dorothy Sacks
wrote:
And the situation is different in every area of the country as both of
you well know. In terms of physics here, there were actual physics
majors teaching (not many, but a few), but even when those teaching
were not *physics majors,* there backgrounds were certainly adequate
to teaching high school physics - in order to be endorsed in any given
science, the certificate included the equivalent of 30 hours of that
science I believe.
The teachers in the suburban districts where my children went to
school were qualified enough to produce many students who won NSF
competitions in both Physics and Chemistry (the AP chem-phys program
there is a model for others around the country and its students
compare favorable with those who attend IMSA and the Science
Academies in New York City.
My son was a B student in this program and he found that he had much
more background that the valedictorians of many small private schools
when he was a freshman in college. The fact is that what is needed is
a wider dissemination of programs that we know work to other public
schools rather than some blanket condemnation of *all* public schools.
Dorothy
David Gossman
Dorothy Sacks wrote:
>
> My son was a B student in this program and he found that he had much
> more background that the valedictorians of many small private schools
> when he was a freshman in college. The fact is that what is needed is
> a wider dissemination of programs that we know work to other public
> schools rather than some blanket condemnation of *all* public schools.
>
Which is exactly why I brought up the example of IMSA. Problem is that
it is difficult to imagine most public schools being able to do what
IMSA does. Private schools or public schools in competition with private
schools would seem to stand a chance.
David Gossman
Dorothy Sacks
>Dorothy Sacks wrote:
>> And the situation is different in every area of the country as both of
>> you well know. In terms of physics here, there were actual physics
>> majors teaching (not many, but a few), but even when those teaching
>> were not *physics majors,* there backgrounds were certainly adequate
>> to teaching high school physics - in order to be endorsed in any given
>> science, the certificate included the equivalent of 30 hours of that
>> science I believe.
>
>Sounds reasonable. But what about college physics?
>
Meaning the AP courses?
Even in the inner city school I taught at here, the AP physics
course was competently taught (the AP calculus class was not
taught well, but that was because a political decision assigned a
teacher who was incompetent instead of the teachers that the
department as a whole considered competent to teach the class.
IOW, we had 3 teachers who were very qualified to teach it, but
the administrators choice was someone most of us would have
fired entirely from teaching if we had been in charge.
My son's program was quite interesting in terms of its organization.
The kids were in a three year program (in Freshman year they took
Honors Biology - though that was not a prerequisite and my own son
didn't take that part of the program - he took regular biology in
summer school. I'm not sure whether he had any science at all in his
Freshman year of high school
Honors chemistry and physics were taken together during Sophomore
year. AP chemistry and physics were also taken together over the
junior ans senior years - alternating semesters - 1st semester was
Physics and 2nd semester was Chemistry for my son - for others it was
reversed, but at the end of the Senior year the kids took both AP
exams. Meanwhile they also took AP Calculus either in Sophomore or
Juniot Year with the science. And many took a second year of Calculus
which correponded to multivariable calc in college.
While these students could probably have taken the courses at the
local colleges, the course was better taught and more productive
within the high school, imho, because of the student mix. Had they
been taking the course at a local college mixed with the regular
college students, I suspect that this would actually have held them
back from the progress they made as a group of gifted students working
together and they did work together on most labs.
>> The teachers in the suburban districts where my children went to
>> school were qualified enough to produce many students who won NSF
>> competitions in both Physics and Chemistry (the AP chem-phys program
>> there is a model for others around the country and its students
>> compare favorable with those who attend IMSA and the Science
>> Academies in New York City.
>
>I haven't seen anything like this level of quality locally. Surburban
>or otherwise.
>
I would love to see this kind of thing become more common all over the
country, Micheal.
>> My son was a B student in this program and he found that he had much
>> more background that the valedictorians of many small private schools
>> when he was a freshman in college. The fact is that what is needed is
>> a wider dissemination of programs that we know work to other public
>> schools rather than some blanket condemnation of *all* public schools.
>
>It's generally a money issue. What has happened in my state is that
>the state is redistributing funds from some districts to others. Of
>course the districts that are losing money (in many cases, large
>amounts) are suing the state.
>
Which is why property taxes are an inequitable way to fund schools,
imho. Of course, I'm much more radical than that. I would like to
see the development of national standardization of course content
Algebra I in Mississippi should mean the same thing as Algebra I in
New York or in Nevada. It also would seem productive to develop some
core knowledge or skill level that would be mastered by the end of
high school or even junior high school. I'm not suggesting a standard
curriculum, but some core that meant you knew what was meant by the
diplomas that were given. Perhaps there could be different diplomas
that meant different curriculums had been covered, but something needs
to be done to get the diploma to have some meaning, imho. And again
while those here would debate the constitutional issues, I still think
that this needs to be at the national level. Maybe the states and
local goverments can control the delivery, but all children need
access to some core content and we ought to agree on at least some
minimum that allows them to become productive citizens of our society.
>What I'd like to see is more colleges offering courses to high school
>students that want to take higher level courses. This seems like a more
>efficient approach given that the expertise is already there.
>
I agree with this approach in terms of practicality, but I have one
caveat about this. Ime, high school teachers are actually much more
able to *teach* than college professors. Many college courses at the
freshman level are too large to allow for the kind of interaction that
this program allowed students to experience in terms of real work on
labs and projects. I suppose it depends entirely on the college, but
many colleges do not focus on the students at the freshman and
sophomore undergrad level, but on research at the graduate level.
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
Dorothy Sacks
wrote:
>
>
>Dorothy Sacks wrote:
>>
>> My son was a B student in this program and he found that he had much
>> more background that the valedictorians of many small private schools
>> when he was a freshman in college. The fact is that what is needed is
>> a wider dissemination of programs that we know work to other public
>> schools rather than some blanket condemnation of *all* public schools.
>>
>Which is exactly why I brought up the example of IMSA. Problem is that
>it is difficult to imagine most public schools being able to do what
>IMSA does. Private schools or public schools in competition with private
>schools would seem to stand a chance.
>
>David Gossman
Why? IMSA is a public school, isn't it?
Of course, not all public schools pick and choose their students.
IMSA has an admission standard - it's an elite public school, like
Bronx School of Science.
David Gossman
Dorothy Sacks wrote:
>
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 15:48:19 -0600, David Gossman <gos...@netins.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dorothy Sacks wrote:
> >>
> >> My son was a B student in this program and he found that he had much
> >> more background that the valedictorians of many small private schools
> >> when he was a freshman in college. The fact is that what is needed is
> >> a wider dissemination of programs that we know work to other public
> >> schools rather than some blanket condemnation of *all* public schools.
> >>
> >Which is exactly why I brought up the example of IMSA. Problem is that
> >it is difficult to imagine most public schools being able to do what
> >IMSA does. Private schools or public schools in competition with private
> >schools would seem to stand a chance.
> >
> >David Gossman
>
> Why? IMSA is a public school, isn't it?
Sort of. In order to get around the problems of trying to administer it
they set it up with special legislation under the state university
system. It does not have to comply with any state mandates for
educational content that the normal public high school has to deal with
nor does it have to hire certified teachers.
>
> Of course, not all public schools pick and choose their students.
> IMSA has an admission standard - it's an elite public school, like
> Bronx School of Science.
Yes but there is a requirement that it be racially and sexually
balanced. Only half of the admissions are based solely on merit. The
other half take into account "opportunity". Even with this qualifier
IMSA usually has the highest average ACT score in the country. It is
also a research school for testing new and different teaching
techniques. It was, for example, the school that separated males and
females for calc based physics instruction to research the impact. Quite
frankly, because the math and science is always be experimented with
some of the best classes are in the arts, language and social science
areas where the teachers are given a great deal of freedom.
David Gossman
m_...@my-deja.com
>
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 21:33:09 GMT, m_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Dorothy Sacks wrote:
> >> And the situation is different in every area of the country as both
of
> >> you well know. In terms of physics here, there were actual physics
> >> majors teaching (not many, but a few), but even when those teaching
> >> were not *physics majors,* there backgrounds were certainly
adequate
> >> to teaching high school physics - in order to be endorsed in any
given
> >> science, the certificate included the equivalent of 30 hours of
that
> >> science I believe.
> >
> >Sounds reasonable. But what about college physics?
> >
> Meaning the AP courses?
I don't know. I haven't looked at what's in AP physics. We're
doing your typical college calculus-based physics course right
now at the elementary school level.
> Even in the inner city school I taught at here, the AP physics
> course was competently taught (the AP calculus class was not
> taught well, but that was because a political decision assigned a
> teacher who was incompetent instead of the teachers that the
> department as a whole considered competent to teach the class.
> IOW, we had 3 teachers who were very qualified to teach it, but
> the administrators choice was someone most of us would have
> fired entirely from teaching if we had been in charge.
>
> My son's program was quite interesting in terms of its organization.
> The kids were in a three year program (in Freshman year they took
> Honors Biology - though that was not a prerequisite and my own son
> didn't take that part of the program - he took regular biology in
> summer school. I'm not sure whether he had any science at all in his
> Freshman year of high school
>
> Honors chemistry and physics were taken together during Sophomore
> year. AP chemistry and physics were also taken together over the
> junior ans senior years - alternating semesters - 1st semester was
> Physics and 2nd semester was Chemistry for my son - for others it was
> reversed, but at the end of the Senior year the kids took both AP
> exams. Meanwhile they also took AP Calculus either in Sophomore or
> Juniot Year with the science. And many took a second year of Calculus
> which correponded to multivariable calc in college.
We're doing calculus and physics simultaneously. It's a three-semester
program through multivariable that I used in college.
> While these students could probably have taken the courses at the
> local colleges, the course was better taught and more productive
> within the high school, imho, because of the student mix. Had they
> been taking the course at a local college mixed with the regular
> college students, I suspect that this would actually have held them
> back from the progress they made as a group of gifted students working
> together and they did work together on most labs.
Well, there is always a chemistry problem and college classes vary
widely. I don't think that we have anything great locally (except,
of course, for Alberto) but there are a lot of great schools in the
Boston area.
> >> The teachers in the suburban districts where my children went to
> >> school were qualified enough to produce many students who won NSF
> >> competitions in both Physics and Chemistry (the AP chem-phys
program
> >> there is a model for others around the country and its students
> >> compare favorable with those who attend IMSA and the Science
> >> Academies in New York City.
> >
> >I haven't seen anything like this level of quality locally. Surburban
> >or otherwise.
> >
> I would love to see this kind of thing become more common all over the
> country, Micheal.
I live in a fairly small district and there are districts in my state
that number in the hundreds. It would be hard to justify these types
of programs where you only have a few students in districts that don't
have a lot of financial resources.
> >> My son was a B student in this program and he found that he had
much
> >> more background that the valedictorians of many small private
schools
> >> when he was a freshman in college. The fact is that what is needed
is
> >> a wider dissemination of programs that we know work to other public
> >> schools rather than some blanket condemnation of *all* public
schools.
You would have to convince the parents of the need for this. I've
had this discussion with Alberto on teaching mathematics for computer
science before and I don't think that you could convince districts
to pay for this unless there was parental demand. And convincing
parents to support something quite abstract isn't easy.
> >It's generally a money issue. What has happened in my state is that
> >the state is redistributing funds from some districts to others. Of
> >course the districts that are losing money (in many cases, large
> >amounts) are suing the state.
> >
> Which is why property taxes are an inequitable way to fund schools,
> imho.
Our state was mostly local property taxes until last year. My opinion
is that there are a lot of advantages to local control in that parents
and officials have to work together for improvements. Districts can
decide what type of community they want and what they will pay for
it. We have school systems that are very efficiently managed that will
be subsidizing districts that aren't as well managed. We have districts
that have chosen to bring in industry that will now pay for bedroom
communities. We have poor districts that will be sending money to
wealthy districts because they have more kids.
> Of course, I'm much more radical than that. I would like to
> see the development of national standardization of course content
> Algebra I in Mississippi should mean the same thing as Algebra I in
> New York or in Nevada.
Not popular in national politics. The best we can realistically
do now is at the state level. But there are politics here too. The
US is really a country of local control. It is quite difficult for
a state or the Feds to dictate curricula like they do in Singapore.
Every district thinks that they need to do it their way (which wastes
a lot of money).
> It also would seem productive to develop some
> core knowledge or skill level that would be mastered by the end of
> high school or even junior high school. I'm not suggesting a standard
> curriculum, but some core that meant you knew what was meant by the
> diplomas that were given. Perhaps there could be different diplomas
> that meant different curriculums had been covered, but something needs
> to be done to get the diploma to have some meaning, imho. And again
> while those here would debate the constitutional issues, I still think
> that this needs to be at the national level.
We have too many diffreing opinions here. Curricular materials, to
some extent, are politicized and you'll find people that aren't
willing to go along with whatever you come up with.
> Maybe the states and
> local goverments can control the delivery, but all children need
> access to some core content and we ought to agree on at least some
> minimum that allows them to become productive citizens of our society.
We seem to be headed in the other direction in devloving power to the
states.
> >What I'd like to see is more colleges offering courses to high school
> >students that want to take higher level courses. This seems like a
more
> >efficient approach given that the expertise is already there.
> >
> I agree with this approach in terms of practicality, but I have one
> caveat about this. Ime, high school teachers are actually much more
> able to *teach* than college professors. Many college courses at the
> freshman level are too large to allow for the kind of interaction that
> this program allowed students to experience in terms of real work on
> labs and projects. I suppose it depends entirely on the college, but
> many colleges do not focus on the students at the freshman and
> sophomore undergrad level, but on research at the graduate level.
Community colleges tend to focus more on their students. The CCs in
my area teach a lot of what I would consider high-school courses and
they don't have a lot of spare dollars for research.
A college that also runs a high-school should also realize the
probability that they will have younger students in their classes.
> There is no sound, no cry in all the world
> that can be heard unless someone listens ..
> source unknown
Seems counterintuitive to me. Especially with technological
possibilties.
panther
rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> Panther wrote:
>
> > MK. Discussion deletd...
>
>...> Quite frankly, from a layman's dilettantish viewpoint, it
>...> ain't whether the school is public or private as much as
>...> whether the student-body-on-site is over or under 400.
>...> LARGE schools seem, to me, to produce crappy results >
....> regardless of funding.
>
> > > LARGE schools also tend to be URBAN schools, so one has to wonder
> > > whether the "crappy results" are educationally related, or
> > > demographically related.
> > >
> > MK. One might wonder. Speculation is not evidence, however.
>
> That's what we've been telling YOU all this time <g>! We've been over
> this "large school = urban area/minority student, small school =
> suburban area/white student" issue before; I'm not sure we're going to
> shed any additional light on it at THIS point?!
>
we've discussed. Large schools = urban schools is new. I doubt it, and
I'm not particularly interested, either.
>
>...>In virtually every category of identifiable indicators of
>...>academic success (income level, two-parent families,
>...>parental education level, racial makeup, and on and on),
>...>private school students, on average, possess positive
>..>indicators to a much greater extent than do public school
>...>students.
>
> MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> > MK. Differences in SES make less difference to student performance
in
> > independent or parochial schools, in Herman Brustaert's study of
schools
> > in Belgium.
>
>
MK. Facts, as much as any published studies are "facts".
>
>...which happen (coincidentally?)
>
> MK. So you say.
>
> ...to bolster your SPECULATIONS...
>
MK. Observations.
>
>...isn't compelling evidence, I'm afraid.
>
MK. So Belgians are some different breed of creature? Longitude makes
that much difference? What? It seems defenders of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME
cartel will resort to the wildest arguments to protect the $300 billion
revenue stream that they control. In education, parent involvement
matters. Across industries, monopolies deliver a wretched product at
high cost. Subsidized good are over-consumed.
>
> > > Note: This is not about MY point of view, but about the assinine
> > > claim that entering a private school confers a 50 to 105 point
> > > increase in SAT score. THAT is unsupportable.
> > >
> > MK. Why do you find this unlikely?
>
> The claim was a universal one; both you and David prefer to frame the
> question as one of "possibility". Sorry, I'm not biting. If you wish
>
MK. Starting the new millenium off on the right foot. You say the
sweetest things. Give us a kiss. I asked a question: Why do you find it
unlikely that students placed in a school with a curriculum matched to
their interests, a school with the power to eject disruptive students, -
wouldn't- outperform students compelled to attend a one-size-fits-all
State school burdened with great barriers in eliminating disruptive
students?
>
> ...claim, then let's see the evidence, not SPECULATION.
>
MK. The evidence is the superior performance of independent and
parochial schools, including Brustaert's study.
>
> > >...The naive claim that private schools do a "better" job is
> > > similarly unsupported when one considers populations which are
> > > demographically comparable. Since I consider vouchers,as
> > > envisioned, to be injurious to education in general, I oppose
> > > such "experiments". I'd be happy to see public schools which
> > > were allowed to operate like private schools, however (charter
> > > schools).
>
> > MK. Would you define the terms "Public school" and "private school",
> > pleasse?
>
> No; the definitions are clearly understood by all here.
>
If Holiday Inn is "public accommodation", why isn't St. Marks Episcopal
school a "public" school?
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> > > > Large schools and school systems tend to have another
> > > > problem so far unaddressed here. Cost-inefficiency.
> > >
> > > A claim absent any real proof.
> > >
> > MK. Depends on what you call proof.
>
> Proof: A way of showing BEYOND DOUBT the truth of a statement.
>
> < multiple variable correlations deleted as irrelevent >
>
>
> > > > Leaving aside for the moment whether (small) private
> > > > schools are "Better" in teaching reading, writing, and
> > > > 'rithmetic... It is often (not always) true that privately
> > > > funded schools spend less-per-student to achieve their
> > > > results (whatever those are.)
> > >
> > > Are you sure this reflects actual COSTS, or merely tuition? And
we're
> > > throwing out the religious institutions (which are subsidized and
in
> > > which at least some of the staff work virtually for nothing) since
> > > they have little or nothing in common with the costs of operating
a
> > > public school? And we're not including private schools which do
not
> > > teach special ed, of course, because everyone knows that special
ed
> > > inflates apparent average costs? Or are we ignoring all that in
> > > making this comparison?
> > >
> > MK. Why ignore it?
>
> He says, while proceeding to ignore it <g>...
>
> > Does it really matter -why- someone will teach
> > algebra for less than the NEA would like its members to accept?
>
> Which, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the point above.
>
a finished school building to your district, would the district accept
it? If the developer were to promise to cover 1/2 the operating cost,
in perpetuity, would the district accept the new school? How does a
voucher proposal for less than the current per-pupil cost to the
district differ from that (excet that the teachers and janitors won't
be paying dues to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel)?
>
MK. And -THAT- is the ONLY issue, my friends.
>
> > > > What keeps large public schools from breaking themselves
> > > > up into smaller organizations?
> > >
> > > Nothing other than needing more facilities, more staff, etc, which
> > > would RAISE costs not lower them...
> > >
> > MK. Large systems are more bureaucratic, not less.
>
> Multiple small systems are often more costly than integrated systems.
> You just shift costs to other places.
>
Dilly asserts is true: Large districts are -MORE- expensive. THERE ARE
NO ECONOMIES OF SCALE AT THE DELIVERY END OF THE EDUCATION BUSINESS!!!
Aggeregation of students and funds in large districts lowers
performance and raises costs.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
SLieber24
>> Maybe the states and
>> local goverments can control the delivery, but all children need
>> access to some core content and we ought to agree on at least some
>> minimum that allows them to become productive citizens of our society.
>
>We seem to be headed in the other direction in devloving power to the
>states.
Speak to UK teachers who taught before the introduction of their national
curriculum, and now teach the NC. They complain that their pupils get no depth
because of requirements to cover so much each year. Education in the UK has
gone down and workload for teachers has gone up 100fold since the introduction
of the NC.
While I like the idea of having the same things taught in the same years across
the US (a highly mobile society, after all), it begs the question of: "Are we
teaching humans or producing widgets?" Not every child will be ready for the
content given at each level, regardless of how well it's taught...
----------------------------------------------------
Sandi
Remove NoSpam to reply.
SLieber24
>> Of course, I'm much more radical than that. I would like to
>> see the development of national standardization of course content
>> Algebra I in Mississippi should mean the same thing as Algebra I in
>> New York or in Nevada.
>
>Not popular in national politics. The best we can realistically
>do now is at the state level. But there are politics here too. The
>US is really a country of local control. It is quite difficult for
>a state or the Feds to dictate curricula like they do in Singapore.
>Every district thinks that they need to do it their way (which wastes
>a lot of money).
If you take a look at the various textbooks for Algebra 1 across the various
companies, you will find striking similarities. States and districts may not
have agreed on course content, but the companies have, for the most part.
Course content for Algebra 1 in PA is the same as in NY and in FL. I know those
three because I've taught in two of them and was a pupil in one (I still have
my textbook - shhhhh...).
I also happen to have a school algebra book from 1898 - the content is the same
as now.
SLieber24
>t's generally a money issue. What has happened in my state is that
>the state is redistributing funds from some districts to others. Of
>course the districts that are losing money (in many cases, large
>amounts) are suing the state.
>
>What I'd like to see is more colleges offering courses to high school
>students that want to take higher level courses. This seems like a more
>efficient approach given that the expertise is already there.
>
Many high schools and colleges have an "early to college" program. This is
where pupils in their senior years (and sometimes in the junior, depending on
the school) can go to college and get high school AND college credit.
Truthfully, anyone can take college courses at any time. It doesn't have to be
offered for high school students to take them. I know some universities will
allow up to 10 credits to be taken without degree specification, that can later
be transferred into a degree. And many times those credits are transferrable.
Penn State (Altoona campus) allows high schoolers to take courses via the early
to college program. So do the universities in my home district in Florida.
Ron McDermott
> In article <87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-zvJhn3ZoXrev@localhost>,
> rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
>
> > So I count your familiarity with school districts at two if we exclude
> > your own experience in NYC.
> I am familiar with districts all over NJ -- My daughter has a choice of
> one HS in one district. If you believe educ. stats (I question them
> often), NJ is better than most - I believe rated higher than NY
More than half our state school population is urban; is that the case
in NJ? If so, and if you do indeed outperform NY, I'm impressed, and
have to then question an academic need for private schools in your
state.
> > So my divorce from reality is established by you citing a couple
> > districts local to you? But my citing of a couple dozen local to me
> > doesn't count? Why?
> Because MANY independent schools in the northeast alone provide course
> offerings not available in ANY NJ public school.
So you're saying that one can find a private school SOMEWHERE which
outperforms their local school? And from this you wish to
generalize?!
> I can't send my daughter to your district,
That's not correct. We have a number of students attending who pay
tuition.
> > > I'll end with this example -- in 8th grade, my daughter was in a
> > > science class that used an outdated computer-dominated syllabus. She
> > > challenged the teacher with more current information she read in the
> > > newspapers and science magazines. But the computer said she was wrong,
> > > so she was wrong. She lost interest, motivation, etc. When we met our
> > > daughter's current teachers during parents' weekend, we questioned a
> > > report card comment by her French teacher that she didn't participate
> > > enough in class. We were surprised and asked our daughter why, and she
> > > dsaid she always raised her hand, but wasn't called on. When we met
> > > the teacher, we raised this issue, and was told there was an
> > > expectation to just chime in. We had to remind the teacher that our
> > > daughter just came out of an NJ public school, and would get
> > > disciplined for talking out of turn if she did that.
> >
> > This isn't curriculum; it is class management/teaching technique, and
> > every teacher is different.
> No, it's curriculum.
We disagree on the definition of curriculum, apparently. Class
organization and instruction technique are NOT "curriculum".
Curriculum is the course content, and is sometimes extended to mean
the overall content in a series of courses leading to graduation
(which, to me, is misleading since this makes "curriculum" dependent
upon the course of study of the individual). In NY, the curriculum in
a given course is delineated to ensure that students receive at least
a baseline level of information for that course, and the teacher may
then go well beyond that baseline if s/he chooses.
Anyway, since my point was to address GENERAL characteristics of
public school vs. private schools, and since your point seems to be
that SOME private schools (hours or states away) outperform YOUR local
public schools, we're speaking about two entirely different things.
Ron McDermott
out of control. These are just you and I anyway, so we can figure out
who said what...
On Thu, 1 Jan 1970 00:59:59, David Gossman <gos...@netins.net> wrote:
I wrote:
> > > > And in THIS I would agree. I agree wholeheartedly that we are
> > > > shortchanging our best students, and wish that this would change.
> > > How, given the current philosophy of public education?
> > > >
> > > > Change it; the current philosophy wasn't handed down on stone tablets
> > > > 1000 years ago!
> > >
> > > Let's try this again. How are you going to change something that has as a
> > > built in philosophy a resistance to change.
> >
> > RESISTANCE to change doesn't PREVENT change. If people can lament the
> > "decline in education", it seems to me that CHANGE is certainly
> > possible if people have the WILL to make the changes. Further, there
> > would be a lot of support for meaningful change from TEACHERS if we
> > could get the public to realize that their "opposition" doesn't come
> > from the teachers. Anyone who feels that vouchers can, realistically,
> > be instituted HAS to believe that change is possible, so why is it
> > that changing the SYSTEM seems so IMpossible to you?
>
> Because I have worked on the inside of the system to produce change and
> seen just how difficult and slow it can be. Our world is moving much to
> fast to tolerate such a system for long.
So it isn't impossible, merely difficult. Fine, we agree.
> > > > But the point is that certifications and unions are clearly not
> > > > necessary.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with you and so do many others; personal philosophy.
> > >
> > > Another thread described the teacher's "unions" in Texas so I guess it
> > > depends on what you define a union as.
> >
> > I didn't think that the definition of "union", in the context we're
> > using it, was that hard to understand? Or do you mean only the AFT
> > and NEA are "unions"?
>
> The other thread discussed an open shop state where the teachers do not
> even have the right to strike. They are more of a professional
> organization than a union.
The Taylor Law in NY removes OUR "right to strike" also. Others have
noted that weak union states often have educational problems to a
greater extent than strong union states - NY is a strong union state
which ALSO has a great many identified educational disadvantages with
respect to its student population. Despite that, it has high
standards and does a generally good job of educating. It appears,
therefore, that the union is certainly not a DETRIMENT, and may, in
fact, be a force for positive results.
> > > > > Then one must ask if they are a benefit or a hinderance to improving
> > > > > schools that need improving. My first hand experience provides a
> > > > > clear answer - not a "philosophical take".
> > > >
> > > > As does everyone else's "first hand knowledge", some of which
> > > > disagrees with yours.
> > >
> > > You haven't presented it.
> >
> > Beg pardon? You made an unqualified statement above. I responded in
> > like fashion. If my response was "lacking" in some way, then so was
> > yours. Unions oppose those things which adversely affect their
> > members. Some of the time that will mean they will get in the way of
> > things YOU think are "beneficial". Otoh, they also get in the way of
> > things which are clearly NOT "beneficial" to education, and I cited a
> > couple elsewhere.
>
> I am glad to see that you realize that by opposing things that adversely
> affect their members that unions might have a negative effect on
> educational quality.
MIGHT. Just as it MIGHT have beneficial effects.
> That's progress.
It would be if you had acknowledged my point as well; as it is, I
don't yet see any "progress".
> When I negotiated with a teacher's union and wanted a very large
> increase in starting teacher's salaries (we were a growing district
> and needed to attract quality young teachers) the union fought
> the idea.
It'd be nice to hear their side of it. Perhaps they were, as is
common in negociation, looking for an advantage to agreeing to the
"opposition's" proposals? I've seen cases which are the opposite;
where the UNION was proposing a beneficial educational change and the
district opposed it. What do these anecdotal points prove? Nothing
whatever. Btw, my union supported such an agreement, but asked, in
addition, for a decrease in the number of salary steps (which would be
an additional factor in attracting new blood).
> They also fought the idea of more school days per
> year even though it was linked to appropriate salary increases.
Again, I'd have to hear their side to make any judgement.
> So you are now the one projecting the specific example of your situation
> on the rest of the US - glad to see that this is the basis for your
> logic.
No doubt because it's the justification you yourself constantly apply?
In point of fact, it's the only way ANYONE can reason, since the
basis for their reasoning is THEIR experience. Leave it to you to try
to paint that as an aberration.
Ron McDermott
wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2000, Ron McDermott wrote:
>
> > > >LARGE schools also tend to be URBAN schools, so one has to
> > > >wonder whether the "crappy results" are educationally
> > > >related, or demographically related.
> > >
> > > Large ~= Urban is a valid tendency. However, I stress the
> > > example I originally cited (from local experience) compared
> > > Brock, TX (small,poor, rural) to University Park, TX
> > > (small, rich, central-urban). Both not-crappy. My initial
> > > impression is that the common factor is school size. It
> > > would, I agree, be helpful to find a large rural ethnic-mix
> > > low-income school to compare to a similar urban one.
> >
> > It would be MORE than helpful if one wishes to claim that only the
> > SIZE of the school is an issue.
>
> There have been quite a few studies on school size over the
> years. You can find some info at:
> www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/index
> I wasn't able to get into the ERIC Digests today using ppp/Netscape
> for some reason, but I was able to get thru via unix/Lynx.
>
> Or you can search the ERIC database at http://ericir.syr.edu/
> for summaries to additional research.
>
> With only a quick glance, it appears size makes a difference,
> especially for low income and minority students.
But size equates to relative urbanization AND to racial makeup. To
naively suggest (as Malcolm effectively has in the past) that the
African-American student population of Newark is equivilent to that
population in Montana, is ludicrous. I haven't seen any studies which
isolate SIZE as the sole (or even PRIMARY) variable, so the results of
uncontrolled studies are less than convincing on this issue; at least
to me.
Ron McDermott
> In article <87XdtVqF0GQ7-pn2-suWtPwJNzq64@localhost>,
> rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> > Panther wrote:
> > > > Note: This is not about MY point of view, but about the assinine
> > > > claim that entering a private school confers a 50 to 105 point
> > > > increase in SAT score. THAT is unsupportable.
> > > >
> > > MK. Why do you find this unlikely?
> >
> > The claim was a universal one; both you and David prefer to frame the
> > question as one of "possibility". Sorry, I'm not biting. If you wish
> > to support this particular assinine...
> >
> MK. Starting the new millenium off on the right foot. You say the
> sweetest things. Give us a kiss.
Oh? Did you ALSO make an assinine claim, or are you claiming
responsibility for someone ELSE'S assinine claim? Suit yourself.
> > ...claim, then let's see the evidence, not SPECULATION.
> >
> MK. The evidence is the superior performance of independent and
> parochial schools, including Brustaert's study.
Non-comparable populations, as usual. Anyone claiming a knowledge of
statisitics should know that this does not constitute evidence.
M. Kilgore
such inertia is a good thing as it tends to dampen quick fixes. In other
words, when Rush starts selling "Hooked on One," the system will be able to
withstand the assault.
mark
David Gossman <gos...@netins.net> wrote in message
news:386E47A6...@netins.net...
SNIP
m_...@my-deja.com
> >> local goverments can control the delivery, but all children need
> >> access to some core content and we ought to agree on at least some
> >> minimum that allows them to become productive citizens of our
society.
> >
> >We seem to be headed in the other direction in devloving power to the
> >states.
>
> Speak to UK teachers who taught before the introduction of their
national
> curriculum, and now teach the NC. They complain that their pupils get
no depth
> because of requirements to cover so much each year. Education in the
UK has
> gone down and workload for teachers has gone up 100fold since the
introduction
> of the NC.
This doesn't necessarily speak badly for a national curriculum but
perhaps it does for this particular implementation.
> While I like the idea of having the same things taught in the same
years across
> the US (a highly mobile society, after all), it begs the question of:
"Are we
> teaching humans or producing widgets?" Not every child will be ready
for the
> content given at each level, regardless of how well it's taught...
A national curriculum should provide content with each child learning
to his or her ability at his or her rate. If you don't do it this way,
then you have to teach to the slowest, the middle or the fastest and
someone will lose out.
m_...@my-deja.com
> >> see the development of national standardization of course content
> >> Algebra I in Mississippi should mean the same thing as Algebra I in
> >> New York or in Nevada.
> >
> >Not popular in national politics. The best we can realistically
> >do now is at the state level. But there are politics here too. The
> >US is really a country of local control. It is quite difficult for
> >a state or the Feds to dictate curricula like they do in Singapore.
> >Every district thinks that they need to do it their way (which wastes
> >a lot of money).
>
> If you take a look at the various textbooks for Algebra 1 across the
various
> companies, you will find striking similarities. States and districts
may not
> have agreed on course content, but the companies have, for the most
part.
> Course content for Algebra 1 in PA is the same as in NY and in FL. I
know those
> three because I've taught in two of them and was a pupil in one (I
still have
> my textbook - shhhhh...).
I reviewed a number of algebra and precalculus textbooks when our
son went through these and I did find differences. For algebra I, we
used a textbook from the 1970s. There are differences in the way that
topics are covered and quite a few technological differences. Older
textbooks don't have graphing calculator exercises nor do they have
programming exercises.
Some texts provide historical information on mathematicians along with
interesting snippets and puzzles. And the tone of the book is different
from books aimed at college students to books aimed at high-school
students.
There are CD-ROM programs, too that teach algebra and certainly the
look and feel are quite different.
> I also happen to have a school algebra book from 1898 - the content is
> the same as now.
I've reviewed many algebra books at one of my university libraries and
found that the actual usage of much older books would be different
from modern texts. One important thing that I found was that there was
minimal white space in those textbooks which have made it difficult
for a young child.
> In article <84lqvo$hdn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, m_...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >t's generally a money issue. What has happened in my state is that
> >the state is redistributing funds from some districts to others. Of
> >course the districts that are losing money (in many cases, large
> >amounts) are suing the state.
> >
> >What I'd like to see is more colleges offering courses to high school
> >students that want to take higher level courses. This seems like a
more
> >efficient approach given that the expertise is already there.
> Many high schools and colleges have an "early to college" program.
We have a program for one of the districts here. But it's nowhere
near being universal.
This is
> where pupils in their senior years (and sometimes in the junior,
depending on
> the school) can go to college and get high school AND college credit.
That's what we have in one district in my area.
> Truthfully, anyone can take college courses at any time. It doesn't
have to be
> offered for high school students to take them. I know some
universities will
> allow up to 10 credits to be taken without degree specification, that
can later
> be transferred into a degree. And many times those credits are
transferrable.
They can but you tend to have logistics problems for day classes and
night classes can make you sleepy in the morning. The better schools
are in Boston which is an hour away.
> Penn State (Altoona campus) allows high schoolers to take courses via
the early
> to college program. So do the universities in my home district in
Florida.