Wash. Post gotcha on Chelsea Clinton's schooling exposes poor reporting instead
In the July 25 edition of The Washington Post, staff writer Peter Baker wrote that during the July 23 Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) said "she sent her daughter, Chelsea, to Sidwell Friends School instead of a D.C. public school because of reporters. 'I was advised -- and it was, unfortunately, good advice -- that if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone,' she said." But, Baker added, "that's not what the Clintons said in January 1993 when they announced the decision." In fact, contrary to Baker's accusation that Clinton has fabricated a new reason for sending Chelsea to Sidwell Friends, Clinton's explanation is entirely consistent with what the Clintons said in 1993 -- which Baker could have determined with a quick Nexis search. President Bill Clinton told the Associated Press in May 1993 that Chelsea attended Sidwell Friends because she "does not like getting a lot of publicity, and frankly she has more privacy and more control over her destiny" than she would in a public school.
Baker noted that the reason Clinton cited at the debate "repeated the explanation in her 2003 memoir" Living History (Simon & Schuster), but then quoted Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos saying in January 1993 that the Clintons "chose Sidwell Friends because it's a good school. ... It's an academically challenging school." Baker added: "And, [Stephanopoulos] noted, 'one of the things that was particularly attractive to the family was that Sidwell has a service component that goes along with their academic requirements.' Nothing about reporters." [Emphasis added.]
In fact, as the Associated Press reported in a May 27, 1993, article headlined, "Clinton Says Private School Allows Chelsea to 'Be a Normal Kid,' " Bill Clinton explained that Chelsea "has more privacy and more control over her destiny" than she would in a public school. From the AP article:
Sending his daughter to a pricey private school gave her a chance to "be a normal kid," President Clinton said today. He insisted that the decision was not a rejection of public schools.
"My daughter is not a public figure. She does not want to be a public figure. She does not like getting a lot of publicity, and frankly she has more privacy and more control over her destiny where she is than she would if she were at public school," Clinton said in a two-hour "Town Meeting" broadcast on CBS.
Moreover, in January 1993, journalists were noting privacy concerns associated with the selection of Chelsea's school. In the January 18, 1993, edition of Newsweek, Barbara Kantrowitz and Adam Wolfberg wrote that "Chelsea's privacy could be one factor" in the Clintons' decision. From Newsweek:
So why pick Sidwell? Chelsea's privacy could be one factor. As First Daughter, she would stand out in any school. But at Sidwell, she's certainly not the only student with famous parents. President Bush's education secretary, Lamar Alexander, sends his 13-year-old son there; other Sidwell parents include Sen. Bill Bradley, Donald Graham and Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, PBS reporter Judy Woodruff and The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt (wife and husband).
Additionally, in a July 23 blog post, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith wrote that during the Democratic debate, "Hillary gave an explanation I've never heard before for sending Chelsea to private school in Washington. 'I was advised ... that the press would never leave her alone bcause [sic] it was a public school,' she said." Smith then linked to a January 6, 1993, New York Times report on the Clintons' decision to send Chelsea to Sidwell Friends and suggested Clinton had been inconsistent in her explanation of the decision. Smith later updated his post to show that Hillary Clinton provided the same explanation in her 2003 memoir that she did in the debate, but he did not indicate that Bill Clinton also cited Chelsea's privacy in 1993 as a reason for choosing to send her to a private school.
From the July 25 edition of The Washington Post:
CHELSEA'S SCHOOLING Blame the Media? Once It Wasn't So.
Ah, it was the media's fault. Clinton said Monday night that she sent her daughter, Chelsea, to Sidwell Friends School instead of a D.C. public school because of reporters. "I was advised -- and it was, unfortunately, good advice -- that if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone," she said. That repeated the explanation in her 2003 memoir that the decision "rested on one fact: Private schools were private property, hence off-limits to the news media. Public schools were not."
Funny thing -- that's not what the Clintons said in January 1993 when they announced the decision. "They chose Sidwell Friends because it's a good school," spokesman George Stephanopoulos said at the time. "It's an academically challenging school." And, he noted, "one of the things that was particularly attractive to the family was that Sidwell has a service component that goes along with their academic requirements."
Nothing about reporters -- who, by the way, aren't exactly allowed to waltz into public schools any more than they are private schools. And who over eight years pretty much left Chelsea alone, regardless of school.
Ben Smith's July 23 blog post titled "Chelsea's school":
Hillary gave an explanation I've never heard before for sending Chelsea to private school in Washington.
"I was advised...that the press would never leave her alone bcause it was a public school," she said.
It's a perfectly reasonable answer, and it may not be the first time she's given it. But here's what the Times reported back when the decision was made:
In effect, Mr. Stephanopoulos said the Clintons had made a parental decision, not a Presidential one. They chose a school purely on the basis of what they as parents thought best for their daughter, setting aside whatever symbolic effect the decision would have. The last recent President with a school-age child, Jimmy Carter, sent his daughter, Amy, to Washington public schools.
"They didn't reject public schools," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. "The schools in the District of Columbia and across the country are good schools, and Governor Clinton supports the public school system, as he has throughout his term as Governor and will continue as President. What they did was choose as a family Sidwell Friends. It's a good choice."
He said the question of where the Secret Service would find it easiest to protect Chelsea was not an issue in the Clintons' decision.
The Clintons said in a statement that "after many family discussions and careful consideration" they had chosen Sidwell, because "as parents, we believe this decision is best for our daughter at this time in her life based on our changing circumstances."
Friends of the Clintons said today that the decision was based on their conviction that they simply would not sacrifice their daughter's education to make a political point.
UPDATE: Indeed, she's given the explanation before. In her book, in fact, as I've apparently forgotten.
UPDATE: And here's the quote from Living History:
"Jackie [Kennedy] gave invaluable advice about how to deal with my loss of personal privacy, and she told me what she had done to protect her children, Caroline and John. Providing Chelsea with a normal life would be one of the biggest challenges Bill and I faced, she told me. We had to allow Chelsea to grow up and even make mistakes, while shielding her from the constant scrutiny she would endure as the daughter of a President. ... Already, Bill and I had taken a measure of the public's interest in Chelsea and the national fascination with a child growing up in the White House. Our decision about where to send Chelsea to school had inspired passionate debate inside and outside the Beltway, largely because of its symbolic significance. I understood the disappointment felt by advocates of public education when we chose Sidwell Friends, a private Quaker school, particularly after Chelsea had attended public schools in Arkansas. But the decision for Bill and me rested on one fact: Private schools were private property, hence off-limits to the news media. Public schools were not. The last thing we wanted was television cameras and news reporters following our daughter throughout the school day, as they had when President Carter's daughter, Amy, attended public school." [Living History, pgs. 135-136]
How incredibly odd. I went to a public school up until 1995 and strangers were NOT permitted on campus. If you were a reporter, you needed permission to get on school grounds. Security on campus was tight to preserve the safety of the students from themselves and from outsiders. I hadn't realized that all public schools weren't that way!
STRANGERS might not be allowed, but the press can pretty much go where it wants to....except private property.
Clintons' message #1 - "Do as we say and not as we do."
chelsea went to public school in arkansas.
It's very difficult for many on the left to triangulate this issue. For many are in the pocket of the teacher's union, yet they opt out of public schools and send their children to private - touchy subject.
That being said, I don't fault the Clintons for sending Chelsea to a private school at all. After all, she was young and her dad was the new POTUS. Any less of a profile for her to try and live some type of a normal life is a good thing. It appears she turned out very well, her parents are to be applauded.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with either explanation of why Chelsea went there or whether they seem to agree with each other or not. Talking heads are wasting their breath on this one.
I agree. There was most likely a number of reasons they chose a private school for Chelsea.
The mention of it by the WaPo at all is silly.
Probably one of the best reasons was that freeptards back then, wanting to do anything to attack Clinton, might have tried to kidnap her and hold her ransom ... or maybe a foreign entity might try it for blackmail ... and a public school would not be able to provide the security, nor would be able to handle the Secret Service running around ...
I guess that all the Republican politicians who also sent their kids to the same school should have expressed their disgust and put their kids into public school, in a similar vein as they used to profess their "family values" by holding themselves up as prime examples (whoops) of great vamily values ...
And I guess the example of Lady Di may have shown what really could have ensued ...
Of course, Chelsea was not a legal adult, unlike 43's kids, who were 18 but drinking in a public place that, had they been anybody but Bush's kids, they would have been thrown out or arrested, and the bar would have been fined for serving to underage patrons ...
It's very difficult for many on the right to triangulate this issue. For many are in the pocket of the corporate interests, yet they opt out of public schools and send their children to private - touchy subject.
Sorry, I fail to see your point Worrier, except that you didn't address the difficulty many on the left have of not supporting school choice, in the form of vouchers, thus removing the alternative many low income parents have to send their children to private schools. Yet they have the funds to send their children anywhere they'd like, and do so.
More of the "do as I say, not as I do" commandments from some on the left.
See, it happened even as I was predicting it.
There you go again Tommy.
You make blanket statements about the left and when someone turns your words around and makes an equally ridiculous statement criticizing the right it goes right over your head.
At this point school vouchers would do little more than weaken the existing public school system while increasing tuitions at private schools.
The answer lies in working together with the school boards, the unions, the parents, the government and the students.
Targeting the unions is not the answer, but that's been the rights solution to every problem that business has had to face for as long as I can remember.
A blanket statement? Did you miss "many" and "some"?
We disagree on school vouchers, obviously. Actually, the competition that private schools offer would strengthen public schools, not weaken them.....as is inherent when there is more competition.
Tommy said "... the competition that private schools offer would strengthen public schools, not weaken them."
That's a blanket statement. He provides no evidence that what he says is true, and that's because it's demonstrably false! Taking money and attention away from public schools will not strengthen them. Schools are not the same as other marketplaces, and there's no proof that competitiion between publicly-funded public schools and publicly-subsidized private schools strengthens the public schools.
"That's a blanket statement. He provides no evidence that what he says is true, and that's because it's demonstrably false! Taking money and attention away from public schools will not strengthen them. Schools are not the same as other marketplaces, and there's no proof that competitiion between publicly-funded public schools and publicly-subsidized private schools strengthens the public schools."
With all due respect you are a liar. A total and complete liar. Every statement you have made is completely false. Want some examples???? Good.
1) There have been studies on vouchers in Milwaukee, Charlotte, Dayton, NYC, and Wash DC. 8 different random assignment studies. All 8 studies found positive effects on standardized test scores (math and/or reading) for students who used the vouchers. 7 of the 8 studies findings were statistically significant. The studies looked at students in the various programs from 1 year to 4 years and saw gains from 4.7 % points to 11 % points. ----Education Myths, Jay P. Greene
2) Florida A-plus program. Students who attend schools designated as failing (with an F grade) 2 times in a 4 year period can use vouchers to attend different schools. Schools facing vouchers (meaning already failed 2 times) made higher gains than those not facing vouchers including 5.9 % points gain on Stanford-9 math test. Also, later analysis of the same program over a 3 year period 1999-2002 (instead of a 1 year period 1999 in the earlier study) by Rajashri Chakrabarti found significantly higher gains in schools that had failed in 1999 (and thus faced the threat of vouchers) than schools which had D scores (and thus were not failing). Also, scores of low performing schools made much larger gains after 1999 (when the voucher program was instituted) compared to 1997, 1997 (when schools were graded as failing, but the voucher threat did not exist).
3) Milwaukee voucher program--Caroline Hoxby examined schools not in the voucher program in Wisconsin (demographically similar) to those in Milwauke that faced vouchers (both high and low levels of vouchers). Over the entire 3 year period, schools facing a high level of vouchers made roughly 10-15% points greater improvement than the demographically similar schools which had no voucher competition.
QED
P.S. You are correct in that schools are not the same as other marketplaces. That's because they are run by the disgraceful teacher's unions and other incompetent officials. They don't have to be run this way; they choose to.
Your statistics are not universally accepted.
[link to epsl.asu.edu]
I think it's safe to say that the jury is still out on the benefits of school vouchers.
I think it's safe to say that the jury is still out on the benefits of school vouchers.
I think its safe to say that you are a partisan ideologue who doesn't care about researching the truth. 8 different scientific, published studies all found positive results. 7 of them statistically significant (do you even know what that means, btw?)
And you're NOT a partisan idealogue?
In terms of education, I believe in giving everyone the best possible education. And teacher's unions do not help to meet that goal. In fact, they hinder that goal. Vouchers help that goal. Therefore I support vouchers. No partisan ideology required. For example, NCLB is a good idea. Possibly implemented in a poor manner, but the idea behind it is right and necessary (which is the complete opposite of many conservatives who want the federal govt. out of education).
Yeah, NCLB was a good idea. George Bush's little brother made tons of money selling testing materials to the schools.
Again, another example of you trying to discuss something that you are clearly not informed about. Did George Bush's brother make money selling testing machines? WTF cares (besides you)?? Explain to me how Ted Kennedy was in on this since he co-sponsored the legislation, Bush give him a 10% cut or something?? Typical tactic of liberals to try and change the focus to something scandalous rather than talk about the pros and cons of the actual issue itself.
Anyways, The intent of NCLB was to institute accountability. The way we determine this is with testing. If a kid can't read a simple paragraph and describe what is happening in it, he doesn't deserve a dimploma. If a kid can't do simple math calculations, he doesn't deserve a diploma. And if schools aren't doing a good job of teaching kids the most basic skills, then those schools need to start improving and do a better job or they will lose their funding. See a high school degree is supposed to indicate that a person has a certain level of academic and intellectual competence (such as, being able to read a paragraph). But numerous schools are graduating kids that DON'T possess the most basic skills. That is the purpose of the tests.
[link to www.resultsforamerica.org]
If Numbnuts Bush is pushing a law which financially benefits his brother's business, maybe YOU should care. Of course, I know it's not as terrible as Nancy Pelosi's property value going up, but it's still worth looking into.
Again, I notice that you tried to change the subject instead of actually addressing any of my points regarding the purpose of such tests OR how Ted Kennedy is in on the take since he was instrumental in introducing the legislation in the Senate.
Thus, I will assume that you have no point and agree with my analysis.
So, Teddy Kennedy co-sponsored NCLB...WTF cares (besides you)?? That doesn't make it good legislation.
"Typical tactic of liberals to try and change the focus to something scandalous rather than talk about the pros and cons of the actual issue itself."
Yes, you're right...I've never known conservatives to do such a thing.
"So, Teddy Kennedy co-sponsored NCLB...WTF cares (besides you)?? "
Ok, look I'm going to try and make this as simple as I can since you didn't get it the first 3 times I tried to make my point.
Your whole complaint with NCLB seems to be that Bush's brother is getting money from making the testing systems or something. Ok, fine. Legitimate complaint. But Bush didn't pass this bill by himself. Why did Ted Kennedy support it? Why did a majority of Senators approve it? Probably because Bush forced them to so that his brother could make all that money in testing systems.
See you keep complaining about the fact that Bush's brother is making money off the testing systems. Ok, we get it. You hate Bush. You think everything he does is for nefarious financial gain (just like Iraq War, no more blood for oil, YIPPPEE). Ok, we get it. But you haven't actually raised any substantial criticisms about the bill itself. You keep trying to talk this up like Bush was the only person who wanted this bill when in fact it was passed by majorities in both houses. What is crummy about the bill? I've yet to see you name one thing you don't like about NCLB except for the fact that Bush's brother gets money for making testing machines---which you've mentioned 4 times now I believe.
NCLB is a fraud. Data in Texas was manipulated to make it look like a success.
NCLB is underfunded and according to teachers I know (one is my brother), it has been a total, catastrophic FAILURE.
Exactly...and Bush's brother is making money on the testing materials. Get it now, Grino?
again, still waiting to hear one substantial complaint on the policy of the bill.
You hate Bush, we get it...
"it has been a total, catastrophic FAILURE."
Care to explain?? No, of course you don't because you don't have any actual facts or reasoning to back up your assertions.
you are a partisan ideologue
I an getting so sick of people making this argument about private schools. As someone who has taught in the public school systems,I can tell you the problem willl not be solved with funding Private Education with public money. First of all, Most of the problem is the the over testing and misguided accountablity required in order to secure funding. So genius-- a few questions-- How do you make Private schools accountable. We need to find a realistic way to hold public schools accountable- the present one is not working and is working against our objectives. Second what do you do with those students who live in rural areas like me where the private alternative is really just for those jesus freaks who are so scared to have thier kids exposed to anything but don't care to insist that mine are forced to learn thier bogus ideology. They are even less substandard than our public scores in everything but reading but hey if we could get our class sizes down to 5 or 6 per teacher-- I can guarantee you that our reading scores would improve too.
While our state requires teachers to go through a ceritfication process that leaves al ot to be desired, To teach in Private schools you're not even required to have a college degree let alone be ceritfied by the state to teach.
Everyone who takes this side of the debate acts like there is a high quality private shool avaiable to everyone and that we are just wanting to get our kids into it. NO__ I resent money being taken away from my kids school-- which is our only valid choice if we want our kids to get a decent education.
We already fund a school system- to fund two systems just because certain poeple don't want to attend it, is unbelieveable. IF PARENTS WANT TO SEND THIER KIDS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS THEN THAT'S THIER RIGHT-- HOWEVER I AM NOT PAYING FOR IT! I ALREADY PROVIDE THEM WITH FREE EDUCATION SYSTEM.
Well said. Of course, Grino will dismiss your opinion, since you are a member of that evil profession, Public School Teachers!
that evil profession, Public School Teachers!
hey moron,
my grandfather, father, mother, aunt (father side), and aunt (mothers side) were public school teachers....So just shutup and stop trying to put words in people's mouths.
"How do you make Private schools accountable. "
They already are accountable. See no one is forced to go to a private school; they choose to attend. So if a private school was being run poorly OR the kids were not learning OR kids were not getting into college, then parents would take their kids away from that private school. This is a choice that parents do NOT have in public schools, unless they have financial means.
"Most of the problem is the the over testing and misguided accountablity required in order to secure funding."
Oh really?? I'm curious to hear your explanations about this. See, the reason that Florida created the FCAT was because there were lots of kids graduating each year who couldn't do something so simple as read a paragraph (10th grade level) and describe what that paragraph was talking about. And employers and colleges were admitting and hiring these people (because they had college degrees) but running into problems when they found out the students couldn't do even the most basic reading comprehension, and math. So the standardized tests really are to make sure the bottom students are receiving a minimal level of education.
"the present one is not working and is working against our objectives."
Why is it not working? What is not working about it? Without you being more specific I can't really comment on present measures of accountability.
"what do you do with those students who live in rural areas like me where the private alternative is really just for those jesus freaks who are so scared to have thier kids exposed to anything but don't care to insist that mine are forced to learn thier bogus ideology"
First, I didn't really understand that last sentence at all. Are you saying the only private schools are Christian schools and/or other religious schools in the area? A common misconception that you and others (Nerzog primarily) keep advancing is that every voucher would be used to send a kid to a private school. That just isn't the case. A kid could also attend another public school. Look no one is forcing a student to use a voucher. It's just an option that exists for students who are stuck in a public school which is not doing a good job AND whose parents don't have the financial means to send their student to another school (public or private)
While our state requires teachers to go through a ceritfication process that leaves al ot to be desired, To teach in Private schools you're not even required to have a college degree let alone be ceritfied by the state to teach.
Ok, so what? I don't see the relevance of this to the argument of vouchers. Also, I have never heard of a private school which allows people to teach without a college degree. Maybe you can name one where you live, but I have never heard of one. And many now are starting to require the same state certification that is required for public schools. So I don't know if where you live is just different from where I live, but what you've described is not typical for private schools (based on my experience).
I'm going to post the rest of my response in another post since it is too long..
Part 2
Everyone who takes this side of the debate acts like there is a high quality private shool avaiable to everyone and that we are just wanting to get our kids into it. No, actually you guys are the ones who keep talking about private schools, when the kid could also go to a different PUBLIC school. The whole point is that a low-middle income student who goes to a crummy public school (and can't afford to go to a better school) should be given the chance to go to a better school. Maybe its another public school; maybe its private; maybe its high quality, maybe its only slightly better than their original school. The point is that they should have the option, if they desire, to attend a better school. I resent money being taken away from my kids school-- which is our only valid choice if we want our kids to get a decent education. Well, maybe you need to move a larger area which has more schools then. But the money being taken away isn't "your money" or the schools money. It is money which is allocated towards that one particular student. So if that student leaves, why should the parents continue to pay property taxes which fund your child's education?? We already fund a school system- to fund two systems just because certain poeple don't want to attend it, is unbelieveable. Why is this unbelievable? Imagine that on the first day of school every child showed up at school and was given a check of $8000 (or whatever they spend per student in your district). To enroll, they would have to cash this check and deposit it to the school district and that pays for all fees throughout the year (salaries, books, eqiupment, etc.). Why shouldn't someone be able to take the check and cash it at a different school district? IF PARENTS WANT TO SEND THIER KIDS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS THEN THAT'S THIER RIGHT-- HOWEVER I AM NOT PAYING FOR IT!Ok, and by the same token. I do not have children. So why I am paying to educate the children of my neighbor?? Or the other children in my community?? Why do I have to pay to educate THEIR children? Look, you're paying the money regardless (it's not like if the child goes to a private school, your tax bill is going to all of a sudden go down), the only difference is where the money ends up (local public schools vs different public school/private school). So I still don't understand your adamant opposition? I still don't understand your main complaint. It is that the local public school will get less money if students leave via vouchers and you're afraid that the quality of the education is going to suffer because of this?? Because a study was already done in FLA which compared schools facing voucher threats to those not facing threats and it found that schools facing the threats did better than the avg school.Part 2
Everyone who takes this side of the debate acts like there is a high quality private shool avaiable to everyone and that we are just wanting to get our kids into it. No, actually you guys are the ones who keep talking about private schools, when the kid could also go to a different PUBLIC school. The whole point is that a low-middle income student who goes to a crummy public school (and can't afford to go to a better school) should be given the chance to go to a better school. Maybe its another public school; maybe its private; maybe its high quality, maybe its only slightly better than their original school. The point is that they should have the option, if they desire, to attend a better school. I resent money being taken away from my kids school-- which is our only valid choice if we want our kids to get a decent education. Well, maybe you need to move a larger area which has more schools then. But the money being taken away isn't "your money" or the schools money. It is money which is allocated towards that one particular student. So if that student leaves, why should the parents continue to pay property taxes which fund your child's education?? We already fund a school system- to fund two systems just because certain poeple don't want to attend it, is unbelieveable. Why is this unbelievable? Imagine that on the first day of school every child showed up at school and was given a check of $8000 (or whatever they spend per student in your district). To enroll, they would have to cash this check and deposit it to the school district and that pays for all fees throughout the year (salaries, books, eqiupment, etc.). Why shouldn't someone be able to take the check and cash it at a different school district? IF PARENTS WANT TO SEND THIER KIDS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS THEN THAT'S THIER RIGHT-- HOWEVER I AM NOT PAYING FOR IT!Ok, and by the same token. I do not have children. So why I am paying to educate the children of my neighbor?? Or the other children in my community?? Why do I have to pay to educate THEIR children? Look, you're paying the money regardless (it's not like if the child goes to a private school, your tax bill is going to all of a sudden go down), the only difference is where the money ends up (local public schools vs different public school/private school). So I still don't understand your adamant opposition? I still don't understand your main complaint. It is that the local public school will get less money if students leave via vouchers and you're afraid that the quality of the education is going to suffer because of this?? Because a study was already done in FLA which compared schools facing voucher threats to those not facing threats and it found that schools facing the threats did better than the avg school.Sorry, apparently it doesn't like Word formatting
Everyone who takes this side of the debate acts like there is a high quality private shool avaiable to everyone and that we are just wanting to get our kids into it.
No, actually you guys are the ones who keep talking about private schools, when the kid could also go to a different PUBLIC school. The whole point is that a low-middle income student who goes to a crummy public school (and can't afford to go to a better school) should be given the chance to go to a better school. Maybe its another public school; maybe its private; maybe its high quality, maybe its only slightly better than their original school. The point is that they should have the option, if they desire, to attend a better school.
I resent money being taken away from my kids school-- which is our only valid choice if we want our kids to get a decent education.
Well, maybe you need to move a larger area which has more schools then. But the money being taken away isn't "your money" or the schools money. It is money which is allocated towards that one particular student. So if that student leaves, why should the parents continue to pay property taxes which fund your child's education??
We already fund a school system- to fund two systems just because certain poeple don't want to attend it, is unbelieveable.
Why is this unbelievable? Imagine that on the first day of school every child showed up at school and was given a check of $8000 (or whatever they spend per student in your district). To enroll, they would have to cash this check and deposit it to the school district and that pays for all fees throughout the year (salaries, books, eqiupment, etc.). Why shouldn't someone be able to take the check and cash it at a different school district?
IF PARENTS WANT TO SEND THIER KIDS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS THEN THAT'S THIER RIGHT-- HOWEVER I AM NOT PAYING FOR IT!
Ok, and by the same token. I do not have children. So why I am paying to educate the children of my neighbor?? Or the other children in my community?? Why do I have to pay to educate THEIR children? Look, you're paying the money regardless (it's not like if the child goes to a private school, your tax bill is going to all of a sudden go down), the only difference is where the money ends up (local public schools vs different public school/private school). So I still don't understand your adamant opposition?
I still don't understand your main complaint. It is that the local public school will get less money if students leave via vouchers and you're afraid that the quality of the education is going to suffer because of this?? Because a study was already done in FLA which compared schools facing voucher threats to those not facing threats and it found that schools facing the threats did better than the avg school.
WHICH eight studies?
Oh, yeah...if you're going to call someone a liar, at least have some solid facts to back it up.
Don't feel bad, I've made the same mistake on occasion.
"Oh, yeah...if you're going to call someone a liar, at least have some solid facts to back it up."
I did list some facts..they were the % gains that the public schools which faced vouchers showed compared to the avg public school NOT facing vouchers.
"I've made the same mistake on occasion."
The only mistake you've made is to comment on and discuss a topic which you are clearly not familiar with and knowledgable of.
I can cite as many websites as you can. Show me an objective study which is universally accepted proving your case. You know as well as I do that advocates on both sides are going to skew the numbers in their favor. You can't prove your case any more than I can prove mine. We're just two partisan idealogues spouting opinions...stop pretending otherwise.
"I can cite as many websites as you can. "
No you can not. You've only cited 1. And that wasn't even a professional published study. It was a 2 page paper written for a discussion. I'm not citing websites. I'm citing actual college professor researched studies.
"Show me an objective study which is universally accepted proving your case."
I just did. I showed you three of them. What is your definition of "universally accepted"??? Several of these were in papers compiled by the Brookings Institution. Is that objective enough for you??????
"You know as well as I do that advocates on both sides are going to skew the numbers in their favor. "
Yes, but these studies aren't skewed. And you have yet to offer any proof that these studies are skewed or aren't scientifically valid. And besides that you've never heard of any of the authors anyways, so how in the hell do you know that they are skewed by partisan ideology???
"You can't prove your case any more than I can prove mine. "
Yes, I can actually. I cited published research. You have not cited any. I cited studies showing increases in schools facing voucher compeition. You did NOT cite any schools which did not improve or got worse after facing voucher compeition.
"We're just two partisan idealogues spouting opinions"
Except for 2 things. I have backed up my conclusions with facts from published scientifically valid studies. You have not. And two, you are clearly not informed with education and the education process, whereas I am familiar with it.
Look you're free to believe whatever you want but the fact is that research has shown
1) Students in voucher programs have done better than those NOT in voucher programs
2) Students at schools facing voucher competition have done better than those NOT facing voucher compeition.
3) Private schools offer need based scholarships; the idea that poor students would not be able to attend a private school with a voucher is false.
[link to www.nsba.org]
[link to www.nea.org]
[link to www.pfaw.org]
[link to www.rethinkingschools.org]
There's just a few. Now, I'm sure your'e going to say that these are not "objective" sources. No, but they're just as objective as yours.
I don't have time right now to go through and read all of those articles to comment on them, but citing the PFAW is a new low. Seriously, not only are they left-wing liberal off the chart, but they have no business or background in educational policy at all. I might as well cite ESPN.
Or the Manhattan Institute?
I would add that proof that different schools have a measurable ability to teach to a standardized test have no bearing on whether vouchers are useful or not. What has the voucher system gotten us? Kids who learn for 2 months out of the school year and study for a scantron test the other 6. And my daughter goes to one of the top school districts in the nation.
The whole voucher system is a joke.
What has the voucher system gotten us?
Improved test scores for low income and African-American children in Milwaukee, Wash DC, NYC, Dayton, and Charlotte.
"Kids who learn for 2 months out of the school year and study for a scantron test the other 6. And my daughter goes to one of the top school districts in the nation."
Isn't this an argument FOR vouchers? You're complaining that the school teaches to the test and therefore only spends 2 months "learning" (I would completely disagree with you since learning what is on the test is learning, but that's another discussion for another time), you should be clamoring for vouchers to send her to another school where she can spend 8 months learning. Thank you for making my point for me...
Nope. School is supposed to teach a person how to think and learn independently, not to recite facts. Don't mistake memorization for understanding.
well many of the public schools are doing neither...so you have a better idea????
80 percent of vouchers would be used in schools whose central mission is religious training. In most such schools, religion permeates the classroom, the lunchroom, even the football practice field. Channeling public money to these institutions flies in the face of the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state.
"80 percent of vouchers would be used in schools whose central mission is religious training."
Care to provide a source for your statistic?? Didn't think so..
http://www.adl.org/vouchers/vouchers_main.asp Here you go Rhino and don't get your panties up in a knot.
I notice you conveniently left out the " In many areas, " to imply that the 80% is true in all parts of the country. Nice job, you've been watching Michael Moore haven't you..
Secondly, there is no actual citation for that statistic.
Third, let's say vouchers couldn't be used for religiously affiliated schools. Would you still be opposed to them then??
And your stats are not "selective"? GMAFB
"And your stats are not "selective"? "
No, they're not actually. I reported exactly what was in the studies and didn't leave out words or stats which disproved my point. Maybe you think the studies aren't valid or accurate. Fine, give me a reason why they aren't valid or accurate. But he specifically cut out part of the sentence to give it a different meaning---which coincidentally is something Michael Moore does constantly.
And, Michael Moore might cite only those studies with which he agrees. You'd never do that, would you?
No, I'd say that you are the liar.
What was said was that school vouchers would strengthen the public schools because it would give them competition.
There's no evidence that the competition causes the public schools to improve!
There's no evidence that the competition causes the public schools to improve!
Wrong again my uninformed friend..Please read my earlier post about the 3 year study done in FLA 1999-2002 regarding PUBLIC schools facing voucher competition vs those not facing voucher compeition.
It's actually the other way around, Tommy. If you know anything about the history of public and private education in the U.S., the well-researched trend has been for public education to push private institutions to improve and strengthen the curriculum. Meanwhile, private schools benefit by enrolling the best of the best while public schools are criticized for their efforts to teach ALL students on limited budget, which is why public education is such an easy target.
At this point school vouchers would do little more than weaken the existing public school system while increasing tuitions at private schools.
You are completely wrong. Numerous studies (including those I've stated below) have shown that vouchers strengthen the public school system. Unless your definition of "weaken" is to improve test scores. Then yes, they would "weaken" public schools.
And I've love to hear the reasoning on how vouchers would increase tuition at private schools???
Anyone this hooked on "the test scores" obviously does not have school-age children. The vouchers created the reliance on specific standardized tests, the tests are garbage and take away from real learning, ergo, vouchers are a failure.
Vouchers are, like voter supression tactics, just a ploy to keep minorities supressed.
"the tests are garbage"
Sure they are....I'm curious to hear why the tests are garbage...Because you don't have to know how to read and interpret a paragraph once you get out of school.
Second, vouchers and standarized tests are not joined at the hip (which you keep claiming). You don't need standardized tests to have vouchers. Yes, they are linked in FLA as the tool to determine whether or not someone gets a voucher, but there is not requirement that vouchers must include standardized tests. Why do you keep claiming these two are related???
"just a ploy to keep minorities supressed. "
Sorry, but you are a moron. The whole point of vouchers to give low income individuals (of which there are a lot more that are minority than white) the chance to go to a good school instead of the current system where they are trapped in crummy, inner-city poorly performing schools. The poorly run inner-city schools are what is "suppressing minorities". The point of vouchers is to give those minorities the same chances that rich white kids in the suburbs have. Why are you opposed to that????
Please enlighten us how you would fix the crappy inner-city public schools we have which are failing thousands of minorities every year?
Please enlighten us how you would fix the crappy inner-city public schools we have which are failing thousands of minorities every year?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
...how about changing the method for the funding of these crappy inner city schools. The monies collected via property and other taxes should be dispersed equally through out a state’s public school systems or maybe give additional resources to the schools with at risk populations. I agree with you Cons about one thing, the desires of the Teachers Union should be considered secondary to the needs of the students. I absolutely support requiring all teachers pass a baseline certification exam to confirm that they are fit to be professional educators. I’ve had to sit for two certification exams and maintain these certifications via continuing education as a stipulation of continued employment. This is typical in many professions where certifications and licensing are used as an assessment of baseline knowledge to practice in the profession. I don’t understand the teacher’s union fighting this; they should be steadfastly behind this. Anyway that’s my solution for fixing a disparate public school system, using resources wisely and equitably and ensuring that the people teaching our kids are competent and whose primary goal is to educate and not turn of profit. Introducing the profit factor into the education system will further damage it in my opinion, that’s what’s wrong with the US health care provision system now, turning a buck is more important then encouraging and sustaining a healthy population.GRINO ...how about changing the method for the funding of these crappy inner city schools. The monies collected via property and other taxes should be dispersed equally through out a state’s public school systems or maybe give additional resources to the schools with at risk populations. I agree with you Cons about one thing, the desires of the Teachers Union should be considered secondary to the needs of the students. I absolutely support requiring all teachers pass a baseline certification exam to confirm that they are fit to be professional educators. I’ve had to sit for two certification exams and maintain these certifications via continuing education as a stipulation of continued employment. This is typical in many professions where certifications and licensing are used as an assessment of baseline knowledge to practice in the profession. I don’t understand the teacher’s union fighting this; they should be steadfastly behind this. Anyway that’s my solution for fixing a disparate public school system, using resources wisely and equitably and ensuring that the people teaching our kids are competent and whose primary goal is to educate and not turn of profit. Introducing the profit factor into the education system will further damage it in my opinion, that’s what’s wrong with the US health care provision system now, turning a buck is more important then encouraging and sustaining a healthy population.
"how about changing the method for the funding of these crappy inner city schools. The monies collected via property and other taxes should be dispersed equally through out a state’s public school systems or maybe give additional resources to the schools with at risk populations. "
Ok, sure, I don't have a problem with that. But the thing is that funding really isn't the main issue. Sure, in some schools where they don't have the proper supplies, funding is an issue. But overall, the funding isn't the major cause of the problems. We're spending twice as much per student now as we were 30 years ago (in real--inflation adjusted--dollars) and student improvement is flat. Hasn't improved at all and on the 8th and 12th grade standardized tests we're getting ranked lower and lower compared to the world. Now yes, things such as computers and other new technolgy surely have pushed up the costs associated with education. But still, spending double and getting no improvement. That signals a problem to me.
"I don’t understand the teacher’s union fighting this; they should be steadfastly behind this."
Because the teacher's union are really set up to protect the worst teachers. Their strength really varies on the particular school district and part of the country, but in some of them it is impossible to fire teachers. and not even incompetent teachers, but dangerous ones. Ones that have acted inappropriately around students. Is it ridiculous that all teachers (w/ the same experience and level of education) get paid the same regardless of the subjects they teach or the quality of the job they do? It seems so to me.
Ah, remember I said those resources have to be used wisely. The system is terribly broken, I agree with you about that. I just don't agree that privatizing the public school systems will correct what’s wrong with it now. Replacing the teachers union’s primary goal to maintain perpetual employment for their dues paying members whether they deserve it or not with the entrepreneurs’ singular focus about the bottom line will continue to short change students in my opinion.
I'm a teacher, and I couldnt agree with you more concerning your comments on standardized testing. I teach AP History and I estimate that I spend roughly one-third of the schoolyear teaching kids how to master Document-Based Questions and the "Art" of taking Multiple Choice tests, neither of which has one damned thing to do with History. I have to do this, because high AP scores may be the difference between the college of their choice and the college of last resort. Meanwhile how many millions of dollars are spent every year on "AP Study Guides" designed to teach kids how to "solve" the AP test- guides that are of course put together by the same people who create the test itself? It's all a racket and has nothing to do with education.
Of course. And when schools fall below the "standard" and are labelled as failing, what remedy is offered by NCLB? Oh, I know.... let's give them VOUCHERS!
"I teach AP History and I estimate that I spend roughly one-third of the schoolyear teaching kids how to master Document-Based Questions and the "Art" of taking Multiple Choice tests, neither of which has one damned thing to do with History"
I'm sorry but as a person who took AP American History (and scored a 4 on it) and my interactions with the AP history teachers at my school, that is not my experience at all. The DBQ is all about independent thinking and trying to relate historical concepts and ideas together to analyze a document. And I don't know what you mean about the "art" of taking multiple-choice questions. There could be some all of the following except which require a little practice since you're looking for the 1 that isn't correct instead of usually the 1 that is correct but most of the questions are pretty straight forward in that they say, The primary reason for the blah blah blah was blah or The policy of blank was designed to .....
GRHINO:
You seem to be a fan of school vouchers. Any idea how much my voucher would be FOR, for my two children? The dollar figure per year would be fine. Thanks.
RHINO?
In theory it would be for however much your local public school is spending per student. So if they spend $10,000/student, it would be for $10,000.
Some other more modest proposals have $5000 or $3000, it doesn't really matter to me. Part of it would probably depend on the area of the county (South FLA is a lot more expensive than say Buffalo NY or Augusta GA) and the going rates of various private schools in the area. But as a general figure, I would say the amount should be = Total school spending/# of students.
Well, maybe if upper middle class and wealthy whites didn't bail from the cities (on both sides of the political spectrum) public schools would be in better shape.
That coupled with the continued efforts on the right to defund and destroy public schooling makes me wonder how public schools are still hanging in there. Oh, I suppose soon enough the right will get their way and have corporate controlled education anyway. That's the ultimate dream - move it to the private sector, just like health care and we've seen the wonderful job you corporatists have done with that.
Well, you've heard how Puddinhead George's little brother has gotten rich selling testing materials under "No Child Left Behind", haven't you?
maybe if Liberal mayors had locked up criminals instead of letting them roam free, upper and middle class individuals wouldn't have fled cities.
I enjoyed slicing through your previous 2 comments, but this one is so inane, that, other than telling you it's inan, I'll pass.
You didn't slice through anything. In fact, you supported my point in one of them and the other one showed that you have no idea how the voucher system really works. Touche.
It's truly amazing how you display your ignorance on so many subjects.
The exodus from the cities was NOT caused by liberal mayors. It was caused by racists who decided they didn't want to live near blacks, so they fled to whites-only suburbs well behind the "red lines".
I agree. I am a good neighbor, I maintain my home, and I don't pry but can lend an ear when I sense it's needed. Well let me tell you, I've personally witnessed White Exodus from two of the middle class neighborhoods that I've lived in, and nobody was robbing or raping them as GHRINO seems to be alleging. I mean these were good neighbors that will even invite you to come visit them in the exburbs. It is absolutely true that when there is a significant population reduction in the municipalities in which center cites are located it depletes the resource pool for school funding. I’ll go back to my the need to dispersed monies equitably throughout the state so that the public school located across the street from a housing project can have access to the same resources that the public schools in those upper class neighborhoods have. In this system it doesn’t matter who moves where.
"The exodus from the cities was NOT caused by liberal mayors. It was caused by racists who decided they didn't want to live near blacks, so they fled to whites-only suburbs well behind the "red lines"."
Just ridiculous that you would try to peddle this garbage. You have any proof of this? Say a study of some kind. Yea, all whites are racist. This is the same kind of crap the ILLEGAL immigration crowd tries to use in its arguments.
I definitely don't have a study to provide you with, but I don't believe that all or most Whites are racist. Most Whites I've had close encounters with have been very decent people, but housing patterns as recorded by the US census continue to be segregated by race. As I said before I've personally witnessed White flight. The neighborhood I live in is middle class and Black it used to be middle class and predominantly White. Whites seem to leave when too many minorities show up. I don't know why this is? What's you're thoughts on that?
"white flight" is a term most know. If this is some nonexistant thing, I wonder why there is a wel known term for it? I wonder why there are laws against racially "steering" people into certain neighborhoods? And "property value dropping" line when too many minorities move in, I am sure I am the only one who has ever heard someone say that. I have seen "white flight" in MD, and have a freind who lived in MI who said he saw it at least 3 different neighborhoods. Again, I am sure Grhino is right though. You, me and just a few other people made this all up.
I love how the Right sticks solidly to the "Rugged Individualism" line, arguing against minimum wage increases, government "handouts," etc. and basically arguing that everyone needs to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and the most dangerous enemy of a free society is "Nanny Government," AND don't believe in "choice" when it comes to things like Abortion, YET are ALL OVER the idea of Government providing vouchers to the poor so they can chose private schools over public. Why? Maybe because vouchers serve a pet purpose- the destuction of the public school system, which they've always hated? And they are quite willing to sacrifice their principles to achieve this end?
Well, why not? The Right had no problem abandoning States Rights in the 2000 election. Rugged Individualism can go overboard now.
"AND don't believe in "choice" when it comes to things like Abortion"
That's because I am opposed to murder. Maybe your side is for murder. That's cool. But personally me (and a lot of other people on the right) are opposed to murder, so we opposed abortion.
Jesus, it's just no one's damned business where Chelsea went to school or why, and I wish the Clintons had responded with that and nothing more. If the mainstream media had one-tenth as much interest in the military service of our current president, his DUIs, and his coke-snorting past, we could have saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars over the past six years.
"It's very difficult for many on the left to triangulate this issue. For many are in the pocket of the teacher's union, yet they opt out of public schools and send their children to private - touchy subject."
Tommy, your suggestion that "many" on the left opt out of public schools is asinine. Only about 10% of students in the U. S. attend private schools. Even assuming that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those students comes from liberal parents (a dubious claim), that still would not amount to anything close to a majority of liberals sending their kids to private schools. So what is your definition of "many"? Can you give a percentage?
I think we all know where this is headed...the Propaganda Parrots want to slam the Clintons (and by extension all liberals) for not supporting the school voucher scam. This is just another feeble attempt to paint them as hypocrites for sending their own child to a private school.
If you're fine with removing choice and telling low income parents sorry, unless you can afford private school, you're out of luck. Seems like such a direct conflict to the liberal notion of helping the poor, but, who knows?
I find this fascinating. Conservatives have no problem telling poor people "Sorry" if they can't afford health care, but somehow are all heart when it comes to siphoning off money for private schools?
Tommy, even if your School Voucher program is enacted, are you going to force private schools to take all comers, or just say "Sorry" to those who aren't accepted? If they want to go to a school that costs more than the voucher amount (as most do) will you just say "Sorry"?
Here's the bottom line...vouchers mostly help those who already have their kids in a private school...I see no evidence that it offers that much more of a "choice" to poor people. Maybe you have access to stats which prove your case?
Nersog you left out the important fact that most of the private schools the vouchers would be able to pay for are "christian schools". Thus it seems another way to force religion down the throats of the many by the few.
Nerzog sorry for the typo.
"Nersog you left out the important fact that most of the private schools the vouchers would be able to pay for are "christian schools". Thus it seems another way to force religion down the throats of the many by the few."
Yea, so??? And the vouchers could be used to pay for Jewish schools and non-religious schools as well. If parents (who aren't financially capable) want to send their child to a Christian school because they think their child will get a better education there, WTF do you care??? How does religion being taught to a child whose parents CHOSE to send her to a Christian school affect your life in any way shape or form?
If they're wanting to use my tax money to do so, it makes a difference to me.
Why???? People's tax dollars go to projects they oppose all the time. My tax money goes to supporting disgusting perverted, pornographic arts which include immoral displays of Jesus Christ.
"My tax money goes to supporting disgusting perverted, pornographic arts which include immoral displays of Jesus Christ."
Really? How much of your tax money has gone to such disgusting things? Much more of my tax money has gone to blow up people who offer no threat to me. Which is more obscene? Blown-up children or dirty pictures of Jeeezzzzuuuussss?
The point of the post was to show that government money gets spent of all kinds of things which people do not agree with or have a problem with every day. The point was not to try and equate the problem I have with money being spent on perverted arts to money being spent on a war against Islamo-facists (which apparently you're not worried aobut--good for you). So quit whining, and bitching, and throwing a fit, get over it.
Get over what?
the fact that a few of your tax dollars MIGHT be spent sending a poor low-income kid to a school with a religious affiliation, instead of letting him rot in his bad inner-city public school.
No, actually, my problem is with my tax dollars being spent to subsidize the teaching of Bible lessons to the kids of middle class religious fanatics. If you can guarantee that this won't happen, and that the money for the vouchers does not subtract from the money going to public schools, I might be able to support them.
It sounds like you're MORE opposed to public education, but the porn art dodge is a nice strawman.
Oppose is a little different then seperation of church and state. I would say using the voucher system (that would be public school funds) to directly pay for Christian (or Jewish) schools is a bigger issue than some pornographic pictures. But I am not shocked that this would be pushed ny the same party that is awash with so many "faith based" programs.
Funneling public money into religious schools is a PRIMARY purpose of vouchers. This idea comes from people who don't believe in public education in the first place and have undermined it at every step. It's as though they've flooded a basement where people live and then offer a program of handing out snorkles. When you oppose their plan they say, "How could you be against snorkles? You must not care about these basement people."
"Conservatives have no problem telling poor people "Sorry" if they can't afford health care, but somehow are all heart when it comes to siphoning off money for private schools? "
The US has declared that everyone has a right to a free public education. If the US decides to declare that everyone has a right to universal health care, then that would follow the same route of education. But presently it is not designated or accepted as such.
"even if your School Voucher program is enacted, are you going to force private schools to take all comers, or just say "Sorry" to those who aren't accepted?"
First, all those who want vouchers sign up. If there are only a limited number of vouchers, you have a lottery to determine who gets the vouchers. Then those who got the vouchers decide where they want to go. The private schools have a target admission goal they are trying to meet. So if the person passes the admissions test (if there is one), they could care less where the money comes from. If the child is not accepted to one private school, then they would be free to try another one. Whether or not they get admitted to the private school has absolutely nothing to do with the voucher.
"If they want to go to a school that costs more than the voucher amount (as most do) will you just say "Sorry"? "
Could you be more uninformed on how private schools work??? Seriously, I don't you could be. Almost every private school has need based scholarships (even those like the one I work at which costs from $13,000-$16,000/year for tuition). So if the child is qualified for admission AND the voucher does not cover the total amount, then they apply for a need-based scholarship. Got it?????
"vouchers mostly help those who already have their kids in a private school...I see no evidence that it offers that much more of a "choice" to poor people. Maybe you have access to stats which prove your case?"
First, how in the hell do vouchers help kids already in private schools??? Kids who go to failing PUBLIC schools are the only ones eligible for vouchers. Second, perhaps you would like to read up on the Milwaukee voucher program or those in Florida, Charlotte, Dayton, or Washington DC. Because the large majority of students offered vouchers were low income AND African-American or Hispanic. Go read the book "Education Myths" Then actually talk to someone who works or has worked in a private school. Then you can come back and discuss. Because presently, you know nothing about the discussion.
"Kids who go to failing PUBLIC schools are the only ones eligible for vouchers."
Oh, really? You'd better make sure that all Republicans know that. I think most of them think that everybody would get a voucher.
Can you guarantee that everybody who applies for a needs based scholarship will get one?
"Oh, really? You'd better make sure that all Republicans know that. I think most of them think that everybody would get a voucher. "
Ok, a couple things. First, in their purest form, yes, vouchers would be available to anyone regardless of income level. However, in the limited number of trials so far, it has been for low income individuals AND/OR those who attend failing schools.
"Can you guarantee that everybody who applies for a needs based scholarship will get one?"
No of course not. Can you guarantee that every single person who applies for a government grant for some kind of research is going to get one??? No of course not. If a student gets accepted to a school, but the voucher doesn't cover the cost, then its up to the school to work with the parents if they (the school) really want the child to attend that school. If the child can't attend that school (because of not enough scholarship money) then they could try another school. Wherever they end up, THEY got to choose, NOT some local education bureacrats and most likely, it will be better than the childs present school.
Sounds to me like the private school is getting to make the final choice, not the parents.
The bottom line is that there aren't enough private school slots to go around, and there is no way to compel the private schools to accept ANYBODY.
What happens to the students who cannot get into the private schools and are stuck in the failing public school? Too bad?
"Sounds to me like the private school is getting to make the final choice, not the parents. "
Yea, so what??? The kid doesn't have to go to the crappy public school that they were stuck in. That is the point.
"The bottom line is that there aren't enough private school slots to go around,
Again, you make a blatant assertion without any factual evidence to support it. How do you know this? How? How? How? How? How?
"and there is no way to compel the private schools to accept ANYBODY. "
Again, so what? What is the point you are trying to make? If a private school doesn't accept anyone, they go out of business. Also, you're under the assumption that every single kid is going to go to a private school. A lot would probably go to a different PUBLIC school. Ever think about that? No of course you didn't, because you aren't properly informed for this debate.
"What happens to the students who cannot get into the private schools and are stuck in the failing public school? Too bad?"
Well, assuming they applied and were denied admission to every single private school in the area (which in major metropolitan areas we're probably talking like on the order of 30-100 and is therefore very unlikely since some schools don't even have admissions tests, you just sign up and you're in), then they could try another public school (one that say, isn't failing). And even after all that if they're not in and they stay at the public school, you know what? The failing public school is going to improve, at least if it wants to keep its funding it will. I already addressed this is in the separate post with the 3 scenarios, A, B, C.
Well, I'm obviously not the expert on this subject that you think you are, but I think it safe to say that there are many more students in public schools than in private...and that most private schools are full or nearly full (otherwise, how do they stay in business?)
"If a private school doesn't accept anyone, they go out of business."
Well, there you go, but I don't know of any private schools that aren't able to pick and choose. Maybe you do? I live in a metropolitan area, and all of the good private schools are full and have waiting lists, and I've never heard of one where you "just apply and you're in". If there are private schools that are that desperate for students, are they really that good?
As for moving from a bad public school to a good one...where are the extra spaces going to come from at the good school? You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is an infinite supply of classroom slots and teachers. Got any stats to back that up?
Grhino what you fail to take into account is not all public school kids live in major metropolitan areas. The city I live in has a population of around 150K and looking in the yellow pages of my city only 4 or 5 out of the 17 listed are non religious. 2 of the 4 or 5 are questionable because of the name of the school so it could go either way. So saying there are lots of non religious private schools in all areas is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe.
So saying there are lots of non religious private schools in all areas is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe.
Ok, first I don't know what exact quote you're referring to or where specifically I said there were "lots" of non-religious schools. You can nitpick and quibble all day long about this and about that. It all comes down a fundamental question;
Do you favor giving students (primarily low-income ones who are also in failing schools) the opportunity to attend a different school (PUBLIC, PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS, NON-RELIGIOUS, etc.) by letting them use the money allocated towards their education towards a different schooo? Yes or No.
You realize you are comparing apples to oranges at this point. You claim the school voucher system has been shown to work, but you admit it was limited to low income and won't be in the "universal voucher" system. And this is precisily when it will completely break down. You will have an "open lottery" for public funds? so you are indeed taking funding out of the system so that a select few can be "moved up". And how does this help the kids who don't get the vouchers? How does this help the public schools that are still trying ot teach those unlucky ones who didn't "win the lottery" especially now that they have even less funding? And of course we could go into the transportation issues, money issues beyond just tuition, etc. The system you decribe has no chance of working in any large scale.
Interesting that Grino seems reluctant to address those issues. He's found a few studies conducted by Pro Voucher think tanks, and thinks his position is unassailable, yet, he can't answer simple logistical questions like yours.
Military I made that point earlier in the thread. Most of the school systems I know of are struggling to provide transportation for the students they have now. Also most are struggling to find money for textbooks and the related study guides et al. They are also sturggling to find monies to keep teaching the special ed kids too. My son is a spec ed student and my local system is desperately trying to not keep cutting funding for the spec ed kids. It's sad for me to think what would happen to my son's education if the funding for his education was cut further because of vouchers.
Yes, you did make those points, but I thought I would see if Grhino would maybe read it this time. I guess not.
But when talking about transportation etc. I am also talking about the "lucky school voucher winners". Grhino talks about scholorships that could be given (not will bne given) to the students going to the private schools. But what about the getting there? What of the extra time it takes for them to get there? Does this low income family suddenly have the time and money to get thier chaild to this great school this is probably not inthier neighborhood? I doubt it. Again more problems without any real solutions in the voucher system.
And how does this help the kids who don't get the vouchers? How does this help the public schools that are still trying ot teach those unlucky ones who didn't "win the lottery" especially now that they have even less funding?
Ok, I already explained this three times, but apparently you didn't so those other posts or didn't understand them. So I'll try again. The failing school (which is losing students and funding) will start to improve because eventually all students will be leaving and/or school will be shutting down. Same exact idea that motivates any other business which sees competition siphoning off its customers.
"Grhino talks about scholorships that could be given (not will bne given) to the students going to the private schools. "
You mean scholarships that ARE already given and would presumably continue to be given...Geez, do I need to like take pictures of the students (who I taught in class) that lived in Liberty City, FL (read the story on Hurricanes football players in ESPN magazine to get a feel for it) and went to a very expensive private school in Miami.
But what about the getting there? What of the extra time it takes for them to get there? Does this low income family suddenly have the time and money to get thier chaild to this great school this is probably not inthier neighborhood? I doubt it.
The transportation issues would be up to the student. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But I would at least given them the option, rather than people like you who want to force them to remain in their crummy school. I'm not saying a voucher is for every kid, I'm not saying vouchers would work for every kid. What I am saying is that parents (esp those of low-income status in failing schools) should have the OPTION to send their child to a different school if they want (and have the money transferred to that new school).
You keep trying to attack vouchers by finding little logistical flaws, which is fine, Democrats typically do that kind of stuff rather than debate the broad issue itself. I just want you to be the one to walk up to the inner-city mom who is struggling to raise 2 kids on her own and wants to send her kids to a good school (but can't afford to financially) and tell her that her kids are stuck in the same crappy school system until she is able to get enough money together to move to a better part of town.
Do you know what many of these private schools are so called "charter" schools that here in Ohio have been incredible failures (deplorable building conditions, fraud, theft of state funds, bounced paychecks for teachers, etc.)
Is that where you want these kids to go?
Or should everyone just go to St. Whatever where teachers are underpaid and religion is indoctrinated.
I think their ultimate aim may be to privatize everything, including education. We all see how well privatizing large chunks of the Iraq War has worked out. At least the contractors are getting rich...and that's what really counts, isn't it?
I could care less which school the child chooses to go to. If they want to go to a crappy poorly run Charter school, fine. The point is that they should have a choice. I thought liberals were "PRO-CHOICE". Oh yeah, when it comes to killing innocent babies, not when educating them...
You have a choice as well - you can educate yourself about the real world or continue to post drivel and straw man arguments.
If you're going to be a sad little troll on this site,can you at least quit going into the ridiculous "well I thought the liberals..." crap? It makes it really hard to take you seriously and argue your points on their merits.
Hey Bush is an evil Nazi guy,
It's not my fault that your daughter is stuck in a crappy school that spends 6 months teaching to a test. She should be able to a different school using a voucher (of course, for some insane reason you oppose this).
You don't find any irony in that people who are "pro-choice" about abortion are so "anti-choice" when it comes to education? I find irony. Maybe you don't.
"You don't find any irony in that people who are "pro-choice" about abortion are so "anti-choice" when it comes to education? I find irony. Maybe you don't."
What an excellent point about liberal hypocrisy! Now that I think about it, I find I am riddled with such ironic double standards. For example, I'm pro-choice about abortion, but I don't think you have the right to choose not to pay your taxes. And I'm pro-choice about abortion, but I don't think you have the right to choose to vote in any state you want. And I'm pro-choice about abortion, but I don't think you have the right to choose to punch annoying people right in the mouth. I guess I'm just a total hypocrite. Thanks for showing me the light.
"For example, I'm pro-choice about abortion, but I don't think you have the right to choose not to pay your taxes. "
Ok, good. The right to NOT pay your taxes isn't something that is being debated or presently in practice. Whereas abortion and vouchers are issues which are routinely debated and whose levels of choice can be changed (and have changed) quite frequently. Paying/NOT paying your taxes isn't something that is up for debate or likely to change...Thats the problem with your terrible analogy.
And I'm pro-choice about abortion, but I don't think you have the right to choose to vote in any state you want.
Again, read what I wrote above about your poor analogy. Choosing to vote in any state isn't an issue that is up for debate or realistically likely to be changed. Whereas abortion and school vouchers are issues which are frequently up for debate and frequently do change.
And I'm pro-choice about abortion, but I don't think you have the right to choose to punch annoying people right in the mouth.
Ok, but the difference here is that being able to punch someone in the mouth is not a position advocated by a large number of people (or pretty much anyone) or a position which is like to change anytime soon. We have a law which says the conduct is illegal and that law isn't up for debate any time soon. That's the main difference.
"I guess I'm just a total hypocrite."
No, you're just a smart ass who can't make a proper analogy.
Yes, of course they are bad analogies - just like school vouchers and abortion. That was the point. FYI, just because two things are debated a lot doesn't make them analogous.
Tommy, if a school voucher would actually allow a poor family to send their children to the school of their choice, I'd be in favor of it. If the school voucher law were accompanied by a law mandating acceptance of the voucher as sufficient for tuiton, I'd say let's do it. But the truth of the matter is that a school voucher doesn't do that: it doesn't open dooprs for a poor child. The exclusive private school is still way beyond reach. It just gives a (arbitrary figures) $5000 subsidy for those who can pay $10000 for private school. To sell the voucher system as a way out for poor kids is not just wrong, it's cruelly wrong. The liittle black girl clutching the school voucher is still on the wrong side of the gate of the private school-- and has to trudge back to a defunded and gutted public school system, being all her golden ticket will get her admission to.
PBG
Your are completely misinformed on vouchers. In their purest form, the entire amount of money which is spent on the child would be directed towards the school that the child wants to attend. If that still wasn't enough money to cover tuition (and the parents couldn't afford to pay anything), then the school could offer a need-based scholarship. Almost every private school (and you're assuming that the child would go to a private school instead of a better performing and safer public school) that I've ever come across (including the two that I've taught at) give need based scholarships to children from financially disadvantaged backgrounds...So keep trying to make excuses.
And, if a private school doesn't offer such scholarships, are you willing to compel them to do so?
"And, if a private school doesn't offer such scholarships, are you willing to compel them to do so?"
Why are you so hung up on this idea of scholarships???? I'm going to interpret this to mean that you've now ceded every other point of contention and that you now agree with me on the success of vouchers (both for the students using them) AND the school which has to compete with them. Ok, no, I would not require every school to offer need based scholarships. But I can tell you from personal experience, every single private school down here (in South FLA) offers need-based scholarships, from the religious schools--which are generally cheaper to non-religious schools which are ridiculously expensive ($16-$20 K/year). Even if a kid can't get into their first 5 choices because of money, there will always a school out there that they could choose to attend and SHOULD be better than their current school.
Look you're basically worried that poor kids won't be able to leave schools because the voucher won't cover the total cost of tuition, but middle-upper income kids could attend these places because now they would get essentially reduced tuition (instead of $16K/yr they would only have to pay $10K/yr assuming a $6k/voucher). Ok, let's just assume for a minute that happened. The public school (where the poor kid is still trapped) is going to improve anyways, just like they did in the FLA study. So Scenario A, poor kid goes to private school and gets better education. Scenario B, poor kid stays in failing school while other more affluent kids leave with vouchers AND gets a better education because school is forced to improve. Scenario C, no vouchers, every child stays in the school and the school never improves because there is no reason to improve. There is no competition.
Does your information come from the Manhattan Institute, per chance?
As for my obsession with scholarships, you're the one who offered it as a solution for the price difference. If we're dismissing the scholarship, then my question remains...what about kids who can't pay the difference? I have yet to hear of a voucher program that guarantees full tuition. Is that whay you're proposing?
"As for my obsession with scholarships, you're the one who offered it as a solution for the price difference."
Yes, because you keep harping and whining about how poor kids won't be able to attend private schools with the vouchers (despite the fact that the voucher would cover 100% of tuition to many, not ALL, of the private schools).
"You keep harping on this as if it solves the question of access. But, if they choose not to offer such scholarships to those who need them, then (as others keep pointing out to you), you haven't offered poor kids a real choice. You're just helping those who can afford it."
Look the point is that there will be some private schools out there where the student will be able to attend that the voucher provides the total cost. Maybe there are some private schools which don't offer enough need based aid to cover their high tuition costs. So the kid can just go to a different/cheaper private school. Look if we make the vouchers ONLY for low-income people, then we don't have to worry about rich people taking advantage of the system and getting part of their kids private education financed when they could pay for it. Again, every private school that I know of has need-based scholarships. The fundamental hurdle to getting into these super-expensive high end private schools is the admissions test/requirements. Who is choosing not to offer need-based scholarships??? You two keep raising this point, but every school that I've seen already does offer them. So why do you keep raising this non-existant idea? And you also completely ignore the possibility of going to a different public school.
"And, in case you hadn't realized it, private schools could offer need-based scholarships right now and then no one would need vouchers!"
They do but they don't have enough money to do it for a large number of kids. THe point is with the voucher money, they could offer it more kids.
I think you're living in a think tank dream world. Here's the problem: public school students outnumber private school students 9 to 1. Granted, private schools can probably do things to increase their capacity, but, realistically, how many new students can they absorb? I'm glad you have such faith in their benevolence, but, how many "needs based" scholarships are they willing to offer? Will you force them to offer more?
Since even you cannot truthfully argue that private schools can absorb all students who apply, what happens to those who are left? Where is their "choice"? If a school is truly failing, what does a mass exodus of students and money out of that school do for the students who have to stay? Unless private schools lower their standards, the remaining public school students will statistically be lower achievers. What will that do to the schools testing average? Will you further punish that school by taking away its Federal Funding under NCLB?
"the school could offer a need-based scholarship."
You keep harping on this as if it solves the question of access. But, if they choose not to offer such scholarships to those who need them, then (as others keep pointing out to you), you haven't offered poor kids a real choice. You're just helping those who can afford it.
And, in case you hadn't realized it, private schools could offer need-based scholarships right now and then no one would need vouchers! So I guess everything's fine!
Hey, good point. There's the solution...just make private schools offer scholarships to all these poor students, then leave the tax money out of the equation.
Problem solved...no?
Brilliant! Now we can all relax and quit worrying about whether those pesky poor kids are getting a gud ejumakashun. :)
Ok, Tommy, I'll make a deal with you. I'll support the government handing out vouchers to give a choice to poor people as to where they want to send their kids to school, bringing them to the same level as the wealthy, if you'll support vouchers providing those same poor people you care so much about the same Health Insurance rich people have. After all, it's all about "choice," right?
And while we are at it, let's give the poor vouchers to even the playing field when it comes to purchasing housing, too. I'm all for it. I just had no idea the Right Wing was so Socialistic.
The Clintons sent their daughter to a Private school because they could afford to.
Private schools are often [not always] better than Public schools. Lots of reasons for that, but that would take this thread far off-topic to get into it. A lot of the problems deal with discipline, and the lack of respect these kids have for adults. Learned at home. Brought to school.
Most Public school teachers I know also send their kids to Private School
Jimmy Carter's daughter went to public school.
But Carter has always been the guy who not only talks the talk, but also walks the walk. A rarity among politicians from BOTH sides of the aisle.
Whatever happened to the whole "personal responsibility" credo of conservatives from around the US of A? I mean, to hear some guys talking on the radio, if you don't take personal responsibility for yourself, the government shouldn't help you out either right? So why the big push for school vouchers? Isn't that government helping people out from their own personal responsibility and all?
Better yet, why don't we make all public schools as good, or better than any private school out there? How about paying teachers a decent wage so that they can retain good teachers, or get better qualified candidates interested in the profession? Case in point. My sister, who is 10 years older than me, started teaching school right after graduation from college. She worked on her master's, and finished that off. She has now finished a 2nd master's degree in technology and IT. So what is she getting paid with all of this education being a teacher, and an adviser for her school? $50,000 per year (bear in mind, she's been working at the same school system now for, oh, almost 15 years). In contrast, I have a BS in engineering. I have been working at my current job for 6 years now. What do I make? $75k/year. If we actually paid teachers what they're worth, our public schools would be better. If we paid more attention to actually teaching kids, instead of getting them to pass an end of the year test, we'd be better off.
Public schools work as long as the money is there, and that's the rub of it. Isn't it?
The fact is there is plenty of money "there", and that is the rub. Throwing money at everything is not the answer, despite it being the answer for many on the left. Accountability and proper, less wasteful spending is the answer. Prove to me that is being done in education, then come ask for more money.
Actually, the research shows that funding for schools does impact student achievement. The numbers get spun out of control and make it seem like the dollars have been wasted (especially on inner-city school reform) but if you take a deeper look at school funding (in the form of facilities, teacher salaries, and student to teacher ratios...not so with "programs") money DOES positively impact student achievement. Conservatives always use this line "throwing money at a problem" but they rarely look beyond this rhetoric.
Ohhh Tommy. You are almost as out of touch as our illustrious president-in-chief (lowercase intentional).
Plenty of money??? Give me a break. I live in Chapel, Hill, NC. The school district here is one of the finest in the country, but they manage to educate ourchildren IN SPITE of ongoing funding difficulties. My wife spent her entire school carreer in Chapel Hill schools, earning a place in Who's Who In American High School Academics. She earned her Masters of Accounting here at UNC. Something like 90% of Chapel Hill high school graduates go on to a four-year institute of higher learning.
Chapel Hill residents routinely vote in favor of higher property taxes to support the school system, with the result that our property values are much higher than that of surrounding communities. Even in a soft housing market, expensive homes sell here very quickly, at the asking price.
What's the point? Even in a district that receives outstanding support from it's taxpayers, it is tough to continually fund our schools for the very reason everyone else struggles. Explosive growth in population creates the need for more classrooms, more teachers, administrators, buses, fuel, water, electricity, food, etc. Do you feel the pinch these days at the gas pump? Imagine having to fuel a fleet of buses each day, when your annual budget is ripped apart by wildly fluctuating fuel prices. Food prices are climbing at a faster rate than gasoline. Imagine feeding thousands of children each day. There are 10 or 11 elementary and junior high schools (soon to be two more) and 2 (soon to be three) high schools in this district and it takes MONEY to do these things. Bleeding funds from education budgets to supplement the tuition costs for those who can afford private schools is obscenely counter-productive.
The teachers and administrators in this district are top-notch. They have an excellent gifted program, for students such as our daughter, who exhibit higher than average intellect and abilities. They emphasize academics over athletics, yet still manage to have state championship athletic programs. They work diligently to control costs, yet they have to struggle each year to keep successful programs afloat. NC last year began operating a State Lottery, ostensibly to boost funding for education, but is seems they just use the lottery to replace existing funding, with the predictable result that lower than expected lottery play puts a strain on our already strained budgets. This year, the ENTIRE allocation from lottery funding is earmarked for debt service on new school construction, and our school teachers are once again scrounging for supplies, having bake sales and car washes, and hitting up parents for paper and pencils. They even have the kids use BOTH sides of a peice of paper whenever possible.
Accountability and proper, less wasteful spending? Give me a break. Look at a successful, yet struggling school district like ours and ask for "proof" that more is needed.
"Bleeding funds from education budgets to supplement the tuition costs for those who can afford private schools is obscenely counter-productive."
I agree, but Grino assures us that the vouchers will only go to poor kids. I hope nobody lets that little secret out to the Republican base...once they hear that, support for school vouchers will evaporate overnight.
You're missing the big picture, M-Lo. See, if we cut taxes and institute school vouchers, then you'll have a large influx of trust-fund babies investing their inheritance in private schools. Just think of multitudes of alien janitors and maintenance workers, the import of low-wage teachers from Pakistan and Indonesia, all paying taxes. Think of the potential contracts for vending machines with Pepsi, Little Debbie, and Hershey's, and exclusivity agreements with Nike and Rawlings. And of course, your child's education would be their primary concern (right after their responsibility to their shareholders).
Would you deny the Homeland that kind of economic growth, just to protect your precious teachers unions? Shameful...
Hey, I like that. It solves the education problem and the illegal immigrant problem all at once...and gives Halliburton a new way to vacuum up tax money!
Let's hear it for "market forces"!
Lets agree that the best teachers should earn more $$. Comparing it to M-Ls position, what happens if M-L did not perform up to company standards, would he/she continue to earn at the same level as those meeting or exceeding company standards at the same senority level?
Also, not all private schools pay above public education level, depends on their income. I know a local private school teacher that increased his income over 30% by leaving a local private school and going into the public system.
Well, I know for myself, that if I don't perform up to expectations, I first earn myself a written warning, and then if my inadequacies continue, I find myself out of a job. I don't think that it should be any different for teachers.
Tommy said money is not the problem. Another example from my sister's perspective. She lives in a very well to do town in Maine where there are lots of well to do families, so no lack of money (taxes are high for property, and other items that normally pay for the public schools). Why then, if there is plenty of money, has she had to purchase text books out of her own pocket, for her kids? Interesting quandry no? The thing is, there isn't plenty of money rolling around as one so states. At least, not in the stories that I hear from my sisters (2 out of 3 are teachers), my Mom (who works for the school system superintendent), my Aunt (who has been teaching school for 40+ years), my brother (who has been teaching school for 8 years now in New Hampshire), and so on and so forth. I could regale you all with stories about how there is not that much money going around in public schools, but I don't want to bore you all.
Local schools are mostly funded by local property taxes. I have a cousin who lives in a wealthy suburb of Chicago where there are nearly as many computers as children, but go to a zip code with lower income levels and funsing becomes a servious issue.
Vouchers won't work universally and anyone who says so is trying to sell something.
Let's not kid ourselves here. The school voucher "solution" is a conservative scam. Conservative white Christian parents have been flocking to private schools in droves since public schools were integrated in the 60s. Some conservative think tank came up with the voucher scheme as a way for them to get back some of their tax money that was being used for the public schools. It is not about "choice" for poor kids...that's a ruse to get poor families in bad school districts to vote Republican. It's just another GOP conjob.
Geez, did you people miss the point of this post or is it all about arguing the same old left/right stuff. The real point here is that another reporter for a major newspaper did one really crappy job of reporting. It used to be a part of journalism training to teach actual reporting, you know research a story, check your facts and then check them again. I guess all of that is out the window in the Intertnet age. It is fine for those posting comment on this website and others to share opinion rather than fact. It is not fine for a reporter of the Washington Post to do so. Shame on WAPO....again.
I guess that such sloppy reporting has become so common, we have trouble getting excited about it any more. Like the puppies chasing the proverbial ball, we are easily distracted.
Hey, don't blame the Internet. The Internet, in fact, makes it incredibly easy to fact-check and it's inexcusable in this day and age with Google and Lexis Nexis to write something like this "reporter" did. It sounds like Smith didn't go beyond a faulty memory for his fact-checking. (An explanation "I've never heard before"? Well, I guess technically speaking, he may be right. He may not have heard it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't said.)
If he'd actually done 5 minutes of teh Google, let alone Lexis Nexis, he'd have seen that the post had a faulty premise and wouldn't have written it (assuming his motivation lacked malice). The whole point of the story is destroyed by the facts; it's not just a matter of changing a number or a minor correction. He may personally doubt the sincerity of the Clintons' reason(s) they've given for Chelsea's school choice, but he's not entitled to misstate them.
What about editors? Don't they share the responsibility (blame) in a case like this?
This is another case of MMFA cherry-picking an article to try and gloss over the underlying fundamental point. Did Bill Clinton mention once that privacy was ONE of the reasons for Chelsea attending Sidwell Friends school? Sure, I guess, so Baker is wrong.
But the fundamental point--the hypocrisy of Democratic politicians who preach all day about education supporting public schools (while these same schools are terribly run) AND then sending their own kids to exclusive expensive private schools---is the main story here.
No...The underlying fundamental point as pointed out by Randall, above, is that this is another prime example of crappy right-wing propaganda. Thanks for playing. : )
Sorry, but it's a fact of life. Rich people can send their kids to any school they want to...the rest of us depend on public schools. If you sap even more money away from the public schools and give it to private schools, the public schools that most of us are still stuck with are just going to get worse.
This is the same phony outrage that is being heaped upon Edwards for his speaking fees. It's just more GOP crap.
Nerzog one time I was chatting with someone and they had the nerve to think and believe that the local school systems should provide transportation (school buses) for private schools since those kids lived in the district and their parents paid taxes too. I never could get them to see the inherent illogic of that stance. From the little I know of school systems around the country I will say, especially my local one, all of them if not all are having a hard time affording to bus the kids in the public school system let alone the ones in private schools.
"If you sap even more money away from the public schools and give it to private schools, the public schools that most of us are still stuck with are just going to get worse. "
That is absolutely and scientifically false. I have already stated numerous examples where schools facing voucher competition did NOT get worse, but in fact got better. Please stop making false statements.
Do you have stats which demonstrate that this is always the case? Did the schools get better because they were facing vouchers, or from some other cause? Are the cases you cite typical, or have you cherry-picked your information?
Just curious.
Again, nerzog, you received no response to your query. Methinks he may be unable to answer your question?
As usual with such blowhards, he initially came on strong with all of his prepared talking points. However, if you ask him a question not covered by the Think Tank from which he gets his information, he either ignores it or resorts to insults. Once you look into his information, it is as I suspected...he's citing studies which used questionable methods and have been cherry-picked to promote an agenda.
Do you have stats which demonstrate that this is always the case?
No of course not. Do you have stats which show that something is ALWAYS the case. No. I do have a study which compared schools facing vouchers to those not facing vouchers.
Did the schools get better because they were facing vouchers, or from some other cause?
Without getting inside the mind of principal I can't say with 100% certainity. However, I can say this. The study found that schools facing vouchers (i.e. 2 F grades) performed better than
1) All other schools in general
2) Schools which were rated poorly (D) but were NOT facing vouchers
3) Schools which had failed once but were not facing vouchers yet (since only 1 F, not 2)
So that leads me to believe that they didn't get better just because of regression to the mean and already had low scores to begin with. Obvoiusly you would need much more research to form definitive conclusions, but if you and all the other liberals had been beforehadn to predict the results you would have all said that the school facing vouchers (meaning students were free to leave) would have gotten worse or possibly stayed the same. This study showed that is not the case (which is also in line with the theory---competition causes qualty to increase).
As usual with such blowhards, he initially came on strong with all of his prepared talking points. However, if you ask him a question not covered by the Think Tank from which he gets his information, he either ignores it or resorts to insults.
That's funny...coming from the guy who didnt' know that private schools offer need-based scholarships.
he's citing studies which used questionable methods and have been cherry-picked to promote an agenda.
1) What methods are questionable about the studies I cited??? You've made this claim more than once now yet you havent' actually pointed out what was questionable about the studies. They were random-assignment studies (i.e. scientifically valid). Please provide some example of questionable methods.
2) Feel free to offer up any studies which show that vouchers didn't improve students education for both the students using the vouchers (the one study cited on that webpage you listed, isn't valid by the way, because it didn't use random assignment) or the schools losing the students to vouchers. You haven't been able to offer up any scientifically published research which supports your points. So stop with this crap about being cherry picked. I supplied valid and accurate data which supported my position. You have supplied nothing except a bunch of unsourced websites (2 of which were from public school teacher's foundations, NOT college research professors).
The fact that the Clintons chose to send Chelsea to a private school has NOTHING to do with the real issue, which is public school funding. Yes, it's unfortunate that only the privileged (right and left) have real choices in education and can circumvent the public school systems, but the fact remains that public education needs political support in order to improve and remain viable and there is no question that the left is more willing to support public education in any real way while the right creates obstacles to prevent any meaningful reform.
I can't believe Peter Baker doesn't have weightier matters to investigate.
My biggest disappointment with the answers given Monday is that no candidate said the deck is stacked against public schools in comparison with private schools given the funding, government mandates and the ability of private schools to turn away special needs kids who may require more resources and perform at the lower ends of standardized testing.
First- anyone who thinks that the vast majority of private schools in the United States are not Religion-Oriented are either lying to themselves or so fricking stupid, I can't believe they are capable of navigating this site.
Second, I'm still waiting to hear an explanation from Conservatives who are against Universal Health Care, all government "handouts," etc. but are gung-ho for vouchers. How the HELL do you fit Vouchers into the "rugged individualism" that allegedly makes up the rest of your mindset? If you believe in vouchers for public schools, how can you then be logically against vouchers for housing, health care, etc? It's all about "choice," right? And people who are opposed to vouchers are "elitists," right? Ok, fine- let's equalize society- Vouchers for Everyone, and for Everything! I'm all for it, because I'm a Socialist- but how does this work if you are a Right-Winger?
Hey JJ,
I am with you. There are a number of ways for all americans to have health care but the answer lays with personal choice. Use vouchers for all citizens to purchase health insurance that fits THEIR needs (it includes barriers to mobility of insurance between states, use of medical savings accounts, as examples). Rather than a universal one size fits all program that will limit choice and access, let's allow the marketplace to do what it does best, provide quality products that people want to purchase.
Let freedom ring!!!
I think it fair to say that the voucher experiment in this country has mixed results. Often it is in how the data is interpreted. There are certainly reports that purport either side of the issue.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_hl_testimony_20030509
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_teacher/mayjune06/newstrends3a.htm#cleveland
The one thing we do know is that parental involvement is the key to academic success. When parents take an active role in the children's education, the results are positive.
In my opinion, Hilary Clinton won the debate hands down. She demanded the attention of the audience, having the strongest stage presence and the most thought-out and well articulated responses. Yet, I would have liked to see all the candidates address the United States’ commitment to the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. Indeed, it is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion annually would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach and it is my hope that whoever becomes president in 2008 addresses this pressing issue.
In case anyone is interested, GRHINO has an agenda. He spells it out quite clearly on his website. In case anyone is interested, here is his mission statement:
"TRUTH MATTERS FOR AMERICA IS A WEB-BASED, NOT-FOR-PROFIT, CONSERVATIVE RESEARCH AND INFORMATION PERSON DEDICATED TO COMPREHENSIVELY MONITORING, ANALYZING, AND CORRECTING MISINFORMATION, DISTORTIONS, AND LIES PROPOGATED BY MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA AND THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH IT."
But no comments on any of his posts- "moderated comments enabled" but nothing gets through. Seems to be a polite way of saying "agree with me or don't post here."
Yet we are treated to his endless predictable bouts of logorrhea here on this unmoderated site. Guess he's fighting us here so he doesn't have to fight us there.
But watch out for the self-back patting, you can sprain an arm.
Well, that explains his cherry-picked stats, and his refusal to answer simple logistical questions.
Name one logistical question I've refused to answer???
I'm waiting........
It's pretty clear that 'GRHINO' has been kicking liberal tail here. Liberals despise the facts and what you have done is point out their hypocracy. They really hate that don't they! What started out as an article by Media Matters (very little) that avoids stating the fact that NONE of the candidates would use the public school system because of its ridiculously poor condition, is now become their weak defense of a failing system that destroys children. The choice to send Chelsea to private school was probably wise for many reasons, one being her parents desire to do so, but it also exposes how vacant the left's 'support' of public education actually is. Face it, the public educational system is a failure, not because of money, but the fact of how little accountablity the beuracracy truly has to those whose education they are charged with. Choice is just one of many ways to dismantle a failing program. Public education has become the Ford Pinto of the 70's, you can't put enough money into that car to ever make it safe.
Yeah, Grino has been "kicking liberal tail", just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. It's easy to do when you use cherry-picked "science" and avoid answering hard questions. Despite what Grino claims, the research he cites is not unquestioned. Much of it apparently centers around the work of Jay Greene, who works for the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank funded by Republican sugardaddies like Richard Mellon Scaife. Now, this doesn't necessarily make it false, but it calls their objectivity into question. I wonder what Grino's response would be if I posted a study by a Liberal think tank funded by George Soros? Well, we know what it would be. We saw how he poo-pooed the article from "People for the American Way". Like I said, not everyone agrees with Grino's "evidence". Here's an example:
[link to epsl.asu.edu]
As stated in this paper, Greene's study was one of three, and the other two had less "glowing" results.
As I said earlier, the jury is still out on vouchers. They may, in fact, be a part of a larger solution, and may work well for some situations, but they're not a magic bullet.
The above comment illustrates the mind set of the right. It's all about "kicking someone's butt" as if the whole thing were some kind of horrible "gottcha" game. Years ago I joined the Conservative Book Club (I grew up in a Republican household and voted for Nixon) but couldn't find 3 books to buy--the reviews indicated that they were all vindictive diatribes about "liberals" to punish them for their views. This seemed insane to me and still does...
The discussion here shows a typical right-left divide about public/private schools, with vouchers thrown in. The left glosses over the problems; the right insists there is only problems.
I have definite opinions about schooling...I homeschooled my three kids for most of their education. However, my daughter attended our local public high school part time, where she fell in love with science (& is now going for a phd in chemistry). Public schools are not all failing. Many of the teachers I've met in many public schools are caring, inventive, creative people. Others are control freaks. (same is true in private schools, by the way!)
I say, go for the school that fits your family's needs the most. Just like the Clintons did.
Oh, and as for NCLB, and its relevance to this issue...here's something to think about. NCLB can be used as a tool to usher public school students toward private schools and remove Federal Funding from those public schools, which could then be channeled into private schools using vouchers. Interestingly, these same private schools are now immune from NCLB testing. Would that change with a voucher program?
Just curious.
FYI, 82% of private school students attend religiously affiliated schools and about that same percentage are schools with less than 300 students. It would appear that vouchers would provide a great benefit to private religious schools . Moreover, since most private schools are small, it would likely be very difficult for them in the short run to accept a huge influx of new students.
Remember this report which the Bush Administration dumped on a Friday afternoon when they hoped no one was paying attention. It essentially concluded that while private schools perform better than public schools, when you compare students in both settings and account for student characteristics, there is no real difference in performance.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard//pubs/studies/2006461.asp