Doocy misrepresents report on voucher program to attack teachers' union
On Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy falsely claimed that a government report found students enrolled in Washington, D.C.'s Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), which awards vouchers to students to attend private schools, "performed better academically than students in the public schools" and claimed that Congress' defunding of the program is evidence that "the teachers union has a stranglehold on the Democratic Party." In fact, the report to which Doocy is presumably referring "found no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement overall."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Doocy claims report found students in voucher program "performed better academically," attacks teachers union
Doocy: Students in D.C.'s Opportunity Scholarship Program "performed better academically than students in the public schools." On the July 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Doocy claimed that "[a] new government education report shows that students enrolled in the five-year Opportunity Scholarship Program down in Washington, D.C., had a higher graduation rate and performed better academically than students in the public schools. But despite the success, Congress has defunded -- killed -- that voucher program." Doocy later claimed during a discussion with Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson that Congress' defunding of the program "shows that the teachers' union has a stranglehold on the Democratic Party."
In fact, DOE's "Final Report" on program found "no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement overall"
Department of Education report: "[N]o conclusive
evidence that the OSP
affected student achievement overall." Doocy is presumably referring to a "Final
Report" on the OSP -- released by the Department of
Education in June -- that compared the
academic achievements of students who received scholarships through the
OSP and
students who applied for the program but were not awarded scholarships.
Doocy
is correct that the report stated that, according to parental reports,
students
enrolled in OSP graduated at higher rates than the students who applied
for but
where not awarded scholarships. However, contrary to Doocy's claim that
the OSP
students "performed better academically," the report actually "found no
conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement overall." The report also stated: "On
average,
after at least 4 years, students who were offered scholarships had
reading and
math test scores that were statistically similar to those who were not
offered
scholarships." Further, the report found that "[a]lthough some other
subgroups of students (female and higher achieving students) appeared to
have
higher levels of reading achievement if they were offered a scholarship,
those
findings could be due to chance." The report also included a chart
noting,
"Average test scores show no significant difference for OSP students
after
at least 4 years":
Study: "[S]tudents
themselves rated school
satisfaction and safety the same whether they received a voucher or not." From the report's summary:
Overall, low-income students who were awarded vouchers to attend private schools through the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) were performing at similar levels in reading and math 4 to 5 years later as students who also applied to the OSP, but were not awarded scholarships. However, students awarded vouchers (and old enough to have graduated from high school) graduated at significantly higher rates than did their counterparts, according to parent reports. The OSP also had a positive impact on parents' satisfaction with their child's school and their perceptions of the school's safety, but students themselves rated school satisfaction and safety the same whether they received a voucher or not.
Significantly. It appears MMfA is trying to soften the success of this program, probably because "the teachers' union has a stranglehold on the Democratic Party."
I'm actually a little surprised that there was little difference in test scores between the public and private schooled kids, particularly if private schools have the ability to hand pick their students. It certainly doesn't speak well for the cost-effectiveness of vouchers.
Second, if any teacher can give a student an A (or D for that matter) and graduate them, then the what is the difference between the public school teacher and the private school teacher? Well, from first hand experience, it is the public school teacher that is encouraged to "pass" their students to the next level, regardless of performance or effort. There is a socialist mentality that permeates the public school system that promotes the idea that all "deserve" to pass. This study shows that the voucher schools did a better job of keeping the kids in class and getting them to a point where college is more likely an option. What is wrong with that?
And, how do you expand the "choice" without forcing private schools to accept all applicants?
I've heard that very argument used by some hardcore libertarians against school vouchers. I'm not saying I think a state monopoly on education is a good idea, really, but there should be someplace for education where a person will not be turned down because of income.
I salute you for that. Have you cleared it with your Teabagger friends?
B*llsh!t.
If that were the case, you'd realize that we should scrap the voucher program and raise more tax revenue to SUPPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, thus guarenteeing ALL students recieve this opportunity. You've been convinced that the public model can't work by the very people who've been cutting their budgets every single year, in favor subsidizing the private model - which would cost a hellvua lot more if the private schools had the same burden that public schools do, to educate ALL comers.
What's more, as a matter of principle, why do you support public tax money supporting private businesses? If the private school model can't educate poor children who, as you say, are "yearning for educational opportunities and work[ing] hard at it" (and thus DESERVE this education, in your judgement) then this is clear evidence of FAILURE on the part of the privatized (free-market) educational model.
And I for one DO NOT want to see my tax money supporting that! I say: FIX THE DAMN PUBLIC SCHOOLS! And I say that it CAN be done. The Right just doesn't have any desire to let it happen.
So... sorry, but as much as I admire the sentiment, I ain't buying it.
------------------------------------
IMHO
And genius, I am not supporting public tax money supporting private businesses, where the hell did you get that? I am supporting tax money be used to help kids get the education they want and work for.
Sure has worked,hasn't it?
I'm not saying we should get rid of them, because every student deserves the best, but I think it can inflate expenditures, therefore creating a false sense that students should be improving more.
If our lower achieving students are getting more attention, scores should be improving, but if money is being diverted from poorer schools (especially their general population students), then of course scores will not increase at a similar rate (if even at all).
I'm not saying this is the only problem, or that those special education students should be ignored (because they should not be - my wife was a special education teacher), but I think we need to see how the money is being spent, instead of instantly declaring it a failure.
"Supporting tax money be used to help kids get the education they want and work for" means supporting PUBLIC SCHOOLS the way I read it.
-------------------------------------------
IMHO
I work in the public school and if you really want to help, fight to get the unions out of the system. There is no incentive to innovate or improve as a teacher.
"Supporting tax money be used to help kids get the education they want and work for" means supporting PUBLIC SCHOOLS the way I read it.
-------------------------------------------
IMHO
Take those electric car developers receiving government grant money to develop technologies that will keep us competitive in a post petroleum economy. Also, let's not discount half-way houses and other enterprises that are able to help people with drug addictions and other problems make an attempt to return to a healthy lifestyle. I know where you're coming from. Let's be consistent is all I'm saying.
There are some industries that we subsidize for no good reason however, and I for one am a little confused as to why you hear a uproar from conservatives if an electric car company gets a few million dollars to develop new technologies, and you don't hear a peep from them over the many billions that the oil industry receives annually despite record profits.
And while the government in not already in the business of making cars, for example but they do already fund schools. What's more, private schools, assuming they are organized as non-profits, which brings huge tax benefits. So there's that too. (I'm OK with THAT kind of subsidy.)
But as far as OIL goes? Yeah I don't get that at all. If it really is "the cheapest way to generate enegry" as we're always being told by them, then why the hell should we be subsidizing them?! That makes no sense at all.
The way I see it, the Gov't should spend money where it has a strong public interest in doing so. Giving money to oil companies? WTF? Now... BUYING oil? Fine. But unless they get some product, service or STOCK in return, what the hell are we giving them money FOR?! (Answer: To help political whores get elected, obviously.)
Electric Cars, OTOH, will save the state (and the world, and the public) money in the long term. So it can be argued that they have a strong interest is supporting that which the market does not, at least in the short term. And if the conservtaives really had any principles re spending, they argue that we should STOP subsidizing big oil in order to accomplish this. But they're too pro-industry, and too pro-republican, so they're OK with that COMPLETELY UNECESSARY spending. (And giving one industry or comapny a specific tax break is "spending," I don't care how they try to spin it.)
----------------------------------------
Yeah, we're on the same page, but the truth will always depend on ones own POV.
I know exactly what you meant, and things like education which I believe and agree with greater men then myself like Thomas Jefferson...is a right, not a privilege...should be run by the state rather then private interests.
I just wanted to give you an actual challenge, seeing as how the right wing arguments are always really predictable and motivated by pure selfish interest (or so they believe, most often it's really AGAINST their own best interests), rather then in any desire to make their country better.
I liked your response, by the way. I think the best counter to these libertarian utopian types is to ask who will pay for the private schools if not their taxes, and if parent's ability to pay should determine if children receive a basic education in the most advanced and free nation in the world.
And you are right about us being the most advanced and free nation in the world. Seems strange, however, that we spend more on public education per student than our industrialized peers and produce students who are far inferior. And with freedom in mind, it seems odd that we tie our students to the school that is geographically situated near their residence, promoting economic discrimination. If freedom is valued, why then do we strip freedom from our system of education and force students to settle for whatever their district has to offer, which, for the poor, is likely a failing school?
In order for EC's to be more eco friendly, then the electricity used to fuel them must also be eco friendly. Wind and Solar do not have the potential to provide clean abundant energy at this time (or in the near future) so where is the clean cheap energy going to come from?
Let's say it is found and implemented and the production of petro fueled autos is banned. Begin the production of the EC's and ramp up the mining of Lithium, the foundation of the best battery technology we have. BTW, the mining of lithium is incredibly devastating to the environment and is very abundant, outside the US. So are you ready to trade one environmentally hazardous fuel that we need to import, for another? Not saying we should just sit back and do nothing. Just saying we should think harder about solutions.
Take those electric car developers receiving government grant money to develop technologies that will keep us competitive in a post petroleum economy. Also, let's not discount half-way houses and other enterprises that are able to help people with drug addictions and other problems make an attempt to return to a healthy lifestyle. I know where you're coming from. Let's be consistent is all I'm saying.
There are some industries that we subsidize for no good reason however, and I for one am a little confused as to why you hear a uproar from conservatives if an electric car company gets a few million dollars to develop new technologies, and you don't hear a peep from them over the many billions that the oil industry receives annually despite record profits.
Take those electric car developers receiving government grant money to develop technologies that will keep us competitive in a post petroleum economy. Also, let's not discount half-way houses and other enterprises that are able to help people with drug addictions and other problems make an attempt to return to a healthy lifestyle. I know where you're coming from. Let's be consistent is all I'm saying.
There are some industries that we subsidize for no good reason however, and I for one am a little confused as to why you hear a uproar from conservatives if an electric car company gets a few million dollars to develop new technologies, and you don't hear a peep from them over the many billions that the oil industry receives annually despite record profits.
Does that also mean revoking the right of private schools to reject underachieving students to maintain their success rate?
Meanwhile, sworn enemies of public schools don't address these questions and instead pound away insisting that all we have to do is start diverting more public money into private schools and our education funding and quality worries will be behind us.
Those who cannot or refuse to see reside on both sides of this issue.
Can you explain how this is a "rich people who already have kids in private schools"?
While I take no issues with or argue against the intentions of this program it should be pointed out that the students who took part in it had parents who took the time to, if nothing else, fill out the application form. A small thing, yes, but it shows that those parents were taking an active role in the lives of their children.
One of the biggest frustrations for my mother over the years was the lack of participation during parent teacher conferences. The students who were struggling most had far fewer parents attending these meetings. Students who were doing well generally had parents to attended.
This, admittedly, is a subjective view, but one that I believe plays a larger role in the graduations rates of any school, public or private.
For example, kids who come from wealthy homes probably will do better in any school than kids coming from poverty, or homes with a lot of turmoil.
Also, parents who are shelling out money for an education are going to be more engaged, which is known to be beneficial.
If you force private schools to open their doors to all comers, will they remain so "superior"?
PROCESS and RESOUCRES. If you have a better PROCESS and MORE RESOURCES a school (public or private) can benefit. Competition in and of itself is not a guarentee of anything.
Plus public schools have to take all comers (which is as it should be) while private schools can select only who they want to. (And again, I'm OK with that.) BUT you'll simply never have a fair comparison of the two. Under those circumstances, you'd expect a private school to do better, even if they added no value at all. It would be remarkable if they DIDN'T perform better, given that they can pick their sample and the public school cannot.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
Guess what? I AGREE WITH YOU. And it can be reasonably argued that this is a common problem with many liberals who believe otherwise! (Betcha didn't expect me to say that!) ;)
HOWEVER...
It IS far more likely the TAKING AWAY money and resources WILL be to the DETRIMENT of any given system. Not always, granted, but that IS a very reasonable, expected outcome. And that runs contrary to the thinking of CONSERVATIVES that the answer to all the world's problems is LESS MONEY: Spending cuts, tax cuts, No Child Left Behind - that was the equivalent of throwing an anchor to a drowning man! Taking AWAY resources pretty much NEVER HELPS.
And vouchers ARE a drain on the resources of the public schools. They do harm to the very system your criticising, thus helping to make your complaint a self-fullfilling prophecy.
------------------------------------------------
IMHO
Hear, hear!!! You're exactly right. When you look at all schools across the country you'll find a close correlation between per student funding and student performance. There are anomalies on both ends, of course, but it generally tracks pretty true.
That's why our country's funding mechanism of property taxes for public schools is a travesty. Poor areas will have low property values leading to lower property tax revenue leading to lower school funding. It virtually guarantees that poorer regions will stay poor for generation after generation and the richer regions will stay rich. It's contributing toward our country's plutocratic nature.
A country with our technology and resources should be able to come up with better public school funding mechanisms.
"No concern for kids or their education?" Really?
Try sticking to arguments that don't rely on brazen emotional condemnations. I think we ALL care about seeing the kids getting a quality education. So let's not resort to this kind of attack.
It's difficult to debate the merits of privatization vs. solving problems facing the public education system with such deplorable accusations being thrown around.
While we're on the subject, why don't we then discuss the cost of school taxes VS. what the cost to parents and communities would be if we DID eliminate the public school system. I think we'd all find those dreadful taxes to be a little more bearable when compared to the cost of a for-profit education system. Unless you'd like to make education a privilege, rather then a right for all students?
I honestly don't know your position or the mainstream conservative position on this topic. How would you go about paying for access to education for all students? Would you keep a tax system in place to accommodate those families who couldn't afford the cost of a private education, or would you make education available to only those families that could pay the price of a private education?
He isn't worth debating over this topic, so he deserved exactly what he dished out.
How very common of you.
You repeat right-wing conventional wisdom with such certainty. Are you sure it wouldn't simply provide an incentive to inflate grades and ease the way to graduation? Schools are supposed are supposed to challenge their students, but challenging your customers doesn't sound like a great business model. Education seems like one of those things where a profit motive might not be a positive influence.
Did you really think I expected a round of applause when I extolled the virtues of competition around here? Nah, it's a four letter word.
Thanks for chiming in.
If you can't refute the substance of the article, or the counter arguments with these tired old emotional generalizations and condemnations, then please take a deep breath and gather your thoughts until you are capable of returning to a level of productive discourse.
For it isn't about my "emotional outbursts", it's about my opinions. But thanks for your ruler on my hand, nonetheless. I will persevere.
Troublemakers, special needs children, and generally poor performers may be rejected or removed by the private schools at their discretion. What you are left with is an invalid comparison between a public school which is mandated to accept all children in their geographic location, and a private school that may pick and choose the best applicants from several locales, as well as reject the least desirable students.
This isn't meant to condemn or validate either type of institution. I think if you examine the issue, you'll find that our society has great need for open-to-all public schools. At the same time, there is no reason why an accredited private school cannot operate according to standards they wish to set.
The problem with this issue, like most issues the modern conservative movement has taken up, is the condemnation of public schools using an unfair method of comparison as a tool to attack organized labor and argue for the dissolution of public education. The solution they present is to -of course- replace these institutions with similar institutions run by private corporations.
The teachers' unions are very powerful within the Democratic party, they contribute mightily to many Democratic candidates and they expect to be rewarded for that loyalty. They don't want vouchers and the Democrats know that. So the party cannot and will not move from the union directives. That's what drives this, your concerns, though valid and important for you, are just useful smokescreens for party loyalists and that is blatantly unfair to everyone, especially students.
Would you suggest the teacher's union contribute to the party that wants to eliminate them, and the wage protections and security their highly skilled profession enjoys?
By your logic, gun manufacturers and oil producers are "contributing mightily to many Republican candidates and expect to be rewarded for that loyalty" as well. I'm not condemning these industries for doing so, because quite frankly, they have found allies in the Republican party in the same way that organized labor have allies in the Democratic party.
Teachers work very hard and must attend institutions of higher learning for many more years then the average worker to become qualified for a job that doesn't pay nearly as well as other professions that require the same amount of schooling or less. It's not cheap to attend these institutions of higher learning and many acquire a great deal of debt for their efforts. It takes years for many of them to pay off these debts, even with those "sweet union wages". It's only natural they would want to contribute to the political party that has their best financial interests at heart to ensure their profession remains open to those who work hard and truly want to educate our children.
My question is if the teachers have such a sweet gig and a political party wrapped around their fingers, why is their pay still so ridiculously low?
From my experience, for example, Asian student were not really any smarter (better at math, etc...) they just WORKED A HELLUVA LOT HARDER that their American counterparts. And that was driven by their PARENTS (and the culture they are brought up in.)
And that's also a big reason that Private Schools SHOULD always outperform Public schools, even if they add NO VALUE AT ALL, educationally: In addition to being able to select the students they talke in, on average the stuidents that ARE coming in are coming from families that are (for a variety of reasons) more involved and invested in tehir eductaion. (Less likely to have two parents (or just a single parent) working multiple jobs and not having any time to help out, for example.)
As I said [somewhere else in this thread] it would be REMARKABLE, given that the Privates select their sample, and given the advatages that sample would have, if they DIDN'T outperfrom pretty much ANY public shcool, let alone a public school in a poor area. It is almost granted that they should get better results.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
That word has a very specific, statistical meaning when used in a study like this one. It's usage to modify the word "higher" is opposed to noting that the difference is [statistically] insignificant. IOW there IS no real difference.
So in this case it makes no suggestion that the difference is REALLY BIG (as you seem to be implying) only that there ACTUALLY IS a difference. And one would never simply say "higher." The only three choices (for possible judgements) are "significantly higher," "significatly lower" and "not significantly different"
I don't think it's appropriate to interpret its usage here as any kind of subjective claim or strong endorsement.
------------------------------------------------
IMHO
Unless it is clearly successful, by the governments standards, I do not see the need to continue funding the program in DC.
Unless it is clearly successful, by the governments standards, I do not see the need to continue funding the program in DC.
And the truth of any given interpretation, given the hypothetical results you suggest (and which I accept, for the sake of argument,) still depends entirely on one's own POV. As with most things, people tend to decide what the rigth answer is aheaqd of time, and find the evidence and the logic necessary to support their conclusion.
I presume that you (for example) would see those test scores as a reason to SCRAP public schools, wehereas I would see them as a reason to HELP them.
But I strongly believe that a society has an absolute obligation to educate it's populace. If our schools are failing then we need to FIX THEM, and makign FIXING IT our top priority. (Even if it comes at a great expense. I can think of no better thing to spend our money on!) And clealy it's not. But graduation rates and test scores like the ones you are suggesting only DRIVE THIS POINT home for me. They don't REFUTE it - not from my POV, anyway. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
The control group was NOT the regular dc public schools but charter schools in the public system. Charter schools require special effort to gain enrollment by parents and willingness to continue to be engaged to remain. These schools are arranged for special purpose studies, the arts, behavioral needs could be just two, but space is limited. So parents and children have to step it up. They are usually much safer, more academically demanding, may even have dress codes, etc. than 'regular' public schools.
This report never makes it clear that this is the control group. Yes these are 'public' schools but not traditional in the sense I outlined before.
The kids that received the vouchers were randomly selected. Many though refused them because of their participation in another public charter school. Very few remained, 7%, in traditional schools. Those who took the vouchers to a private school were ones that would have been stuck in one of those traditional schools and suffered such poor results. That's where a fair comparison should have been made but instead the researchers imply that by never directly clarifying the terminology.
The caliber of academic performance between public and private schools is negligible.
Exactly as I've said. That is why Democrats don't like vouchers. Nothing to do with quality of education or giving kids the best possible opportunties, all about unions, "in particular".
'cause I said so
When I read this article, and the way Steve Doocy was trying to conflate these statistics, the last thing that came to my mind was "He's attacking the unions!". From the history of Fox News and Steve Doocy in particular, the first thing that crossed my mind was: here we go again with another dishonest attempt to condemn public institutions in the "push to privatize" everything agenda.
I think you're about the only one on this thread who keeps insisting this has anything to do with unions. Pretty much everyone else is discussing the invalid comparison, and discussing the merits of having a public education system, and the concept of improving public schools vs. vouchers.
Except MMfA above, read the headline. It's all about unions for Democrats, but like most of their issues they disguise their true intentions behind what they publicly put out there. It's about payback, money, power. You can choose to keep saying "nothing to see here", but the amount of money unions contribute to keep Democrats in their pockets is all one needs to know about the priorities for Democrats. It's all about pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but not schools.
You dress this up like this is some grand conspiracy. What is so odd about a group of professionals through their trade organizations getting together and contributing money to a political party that represents the interests of those in that profession? If you think it's so deplorable that unions contribute money to the Democratic party, then surely you must be equally appalled at all the corporate money going to both parties for those free market interests? Is it more deplorable that educators want their interests represented then gun manufacturers? Banks? Doctors? The Bar Association? The chamber of commerce? Soft Drink manufacturers?
The point I'm trying to make is that you're looking at this with anti-union tunnel-vision. I would love to get rid of all the lobbying and the NEED for lobbying. Realistically though, this is the system we have now and we're stuck with it until we the people wake up from this haze of meaningless politics of personal destruction and misinformation, and start to support and vote for people willing to address the inherent corruption in the system.
Again, if there were not groups contributing large amounts of money to an agenda to de-fund and destroy public education, the unions wouldn't need to support politicians that wish to allow them to maintain bargaining power and control their destiny.
If you want to take away the right of a professional trade organization to lobby for their agenda, then you would be hypocritical in not condemning ALL professions and trade organizations for doing the exact same thing!
Education is not a business. Education is what we do for our kids to ensure a better future for all of us. Fundamentalist market values and profit motive have no place in a classroom or educational institution as those institutions are there to serve communities, not suck the life out of them like some bulls**t, money hungry Wall St. banker.
I honestly think you hit the nail on the head as to why the freemarket fundies like to mess with the education system like this - they want a steady supply of drones to exploit for profit.
They're so full of sh*t.
The wealthy already have the opportunity to seek better education for their children and wouldn't see vouchers as the chance to do that.
The private schools have proven it delivers a better product than most public schools, with fewer resources and at a much lower cost. Why is that? Little if any parental involvement in public schooling is required, low or no personal investment means their kids will be not be encouraged to succeed academically either.
Make the parents choose, get involved, see what is happening on school boards and in the classroom and demand they step up. Give them vouchers to move, between public, private, charter and if their kids fail, don't show up then hit them with fines to force them to make sure kids are working up to standards.
But where does that leave all the single parents working multiple jobs to get by?
Just awsome! Fine poor parents whose children don't do well at school.
And where in your scheme would learning disabled children receive the help they need?
And your solutions seem like they would require more state intevention and money to be spent - have you really thought this through?
Newflash - if they aren't involved in their child's education, chances are they are neglecting other parental duties as well. And you have more problems than poor grades. I don't buy that excuse, I know you are full of excuses, but I expect parents to become involved. It is their job and their moral responsibility to the children they choose to bring into the world.
So they might be tired at night, tough.
Not even close to my attitude. I do think the education system should work with parents in different situations. And what about other situations, like kids in foster homes? You know there are foster parents not too involved with the kids right? I guess tough for the kids - they should have been born to better parents and not wound up in foster care.
Of for cryin' out loud. It's not an excuse to understand all issues involved in something like a child doing poorly at school. You know I recall reading about a ADA elected in Dade county (IIRC). He was republican. When he took office, he wanted to deal with youth crime. He found by studying the literature, that one of the first signs of future criminality for youths was truancy. He instituted a system whereby as soon as a student was identified as being repeatedly truant, the school truant officers (?) DA office and reps from community organizations held a meeting with the child and their guardian(s). There they determined causes for truancy. If it was transportation, they came up with a plan. Whatever was contributing to the truancy was addressed. There was monitoring and escalting sanctions for non-compliance.
The voters lost their minds because of the monies being spent on this. Well in the end, it was shown to actually save money this way rather than dealing with the kids in the criminal justice system down the road. Oh, and more kids were graduating.
Or they might be working that second job?
I am also not speaking of foster children, another intentional twist of yours, they have a special set of circumstances that require special needs. If you want to lump them into our discussion above, fine, but I wasn't. And you know it.
And then you went off on some unrelated tangent about truancy and Miami, and then ended your twisted little tirade with another of your patented excuses for one's failings.
In other words, you could have saved yourself some time and smoked a cigarette or something instead of posting such tripe. It's worthless.
Right - and who suffers when a parent fails in that responsibility?
Except, how does the "free market" system deal with them? Your contention is the free market will be better at educating children. There are all kinds of situations children are in, through no fault of their own, which will lead them to require more money and effort to educate them. I guess there's a voucher for that.
Sorry for trying to illustrate a way in which a public system found a way to deal with troubled students. Something the free market could not do.
Tirade? Really? Someone is extra emotional today.
Anyway, you do recall your trite response...
To my point that some single parents might have difficulty attending meetings and such or making sure their kids do their homework nightly - because they aren't there. Not because they are "tired".
Still, the rest of your post didn't improve from one to the next, it's still worthless tripe.
Do tell, in your privatized fantasy lan, how does a system educating children deal with those who have special needs?
You're batting zero today my friend.
Unrelated to the discussion? WOW! They are children. They require an educatuion. You can't see how that would possibly fit in a discussion regarding public ed. vs privitized ed?
The point being, the conversation is regading the best way to educate children. You have stated it is through the free market system (competition). I tried to point to examples where the free market can't provide the service (never mind better servise) as it relates to children with special needs. But I guess the don't exist in your world or they don't deserve an education. How do you sleep?
Let's stop beating around the bush here. If it weren't for the disastrous economic policies of the last 30 years, you would still have strong unions in this country and competitive business models. A single parent could support a family as a single wage earner, and jobs that used to pay a living wage wouldn't be sent off to countries with deplorable human rights records and conditions barely better then slave labor. You would have less illegal immigrants being exploited by these large subsidized businesses who then send money back to their home countries and thus subsidize the political corruption and injustice present there. This is all in the name of "free trade" and "freeing the markets". I suppose they have succeeded, we now have markets free of concepts like human dignity, competition, patriotism, and responsibility. Thank you neo-conservatives!
According to conservatives we can all just "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps" while the amoral profiteers have their boots laced up tight and placed firmly on our necks.
There was a time in this country when profits came with personal responsibility and integrity, but those days have more or less ended in the name of massive short term gains for insiders and cronies. Go on....take the money and run!
You want to know the real reasons why the public schools seem to be failing our kids? You need to look at the deeper problems plaguing our nation and society....though once you take that red pill and start looking down that rabbit hole, you may not like where it leads.
Companies who don't maximize their profits are history. You aren't just competing with another business across town, you are competing with one across the world.
I am not making excuses for corporate malfeasance or million dollar bonuses, but these are all by products of a cut throat globally competitive world. It is what it is.
But the answers, in my opinion, is not growing our government more and making more people dependent on it. And we need to give our children every opportunity to pursue the finest education available, open up their choices and give them the tools to compete globally.
Japanese CEO's make just about 25 times more than the average employee, the Japanese work force is mostly unionized and last time I checked, they're doing alright in this global economy. So save your bulls**t for some Ayn Rand, Tom Friedman flat earther. You're just making excuses for an abusive lover.
Seek help. Now.
Why not depend on government to get your back? Do you really think those merciful captains of industry give a s**t about you?
Politicians may not care, but at least they HAVE to hear your voice and allow you to redress your grievances.
Anyway, as it pertains to privatizing schools, let's follow your hyper-capitalist bullsh*t to it's logical conclusion. If, as you claim, we live in a world where profits rule, where will that leave our teachers and students; and thus our very future as country, when we are inevitably fed into the for profit meat grinder?
We have seen what the lust for profits has done to our unionized industrial base. We have seen what the lust for profits on Wall St. has done to homeowners from city to city, to town to town. We have watched the lust for profits ruin the lives of commercial airline pilots as they are overworked, underpaid and worn out.
No. I don't want your something for nothing corporate culture running our schools. You'd have to be an imbecile to want that. I don't want a small swarm of corporate entities working our teachers to death, culling out their scholarly souls and giving them nothing but a minimum wage in return with no hope of a secure retirement. Nope. That profits rule, something for nothing bs is not consistent with the kinds of values we should be teaching our kids.
If publicly funded institutions start showing some fiscal care and restraint with the way they spend other people's money, you know the stuff you hate, then maybe they would get more respect from those whose taxes are taken to fund them. But for you it all makes sense. You hate rich people, successful people who earn more money than you feel they should have, so let's grow the government as big as possible to take more of that damned money of theirs. Who cares if it's wasted or abused, as long as the rich have less of it, you're a happy camper.
You're so transparent it's laughable.
If publicly funded institutions start showing some fiscal care and restraint with the way they spend other people's money, you know the stuff you hate, then maybe they would get more respect from those whose taxes are taken to fund them. But for you it all makes sense. You hate rich people, successful people who earn more money than you feel they should have, so let's grow the government as big as possible to take more of that damned money of theirs. Who cares if it's wasted or abused, as long as the rich have less of it, you're a happy camper.
You're so transparent it's laughable.
Dang right I hate those rich bastardos who take more and more in obscene compensation, gamble away 401Ks, offshore good jobs, bust unions and intimidate organizers, scoff at living wages and care not a wit of any of the consequences. You should hate too but you love that middle class crushing, corporate culture. So just go f**k yourself.
Whatever.
Some successful people do it right in business. Some of them care about their employees, pay living wages and provide retirement benefits, share profits (not some stock option bs) and run the business cooperatively in an employee ownership model. You know they remove the profit motive democratically and allow the people to make the decisions, not this corporate totalitarian s**t where you sacrifice all your civil rights and suffer mistreatment when you go to work for them.
Save your glib, "get another job line," too. Because all across this country, in the rural slums, where industry effectively holds employees geographically in check, people have no where to go except to the highest low wage employer in the area.
You f**kers with your unfettered capitalist, winner take all rhetoric are some evil a** wh**es.
Gee, why is everything still so f**ked up?
All it does is give a crutch to limp away on from your a** kicking I just gave you for writing your slovenly anti-democratic, America hating, middle class crushing, big business love letters in public.
Your premise is complete BS. There are only a small handful of liberals in either house of Congress. There are more conservatives than there are liberals and more centrists than either or those. The President is just a touch left of center and the Supreme Court is more conservative than liberal.
Liberals run virtually nothing in Washington.
My son goes to school in the same district that I grew up in. In recent years, they have consolidated operations into fewer buildings, sold off the ones no longer used, cut numerous days from the school year to save on gas, electricity and transportation, and demanded more and more supplies from parents. BUT, they have managed to keep class sizes small and remain competitive with the private sector for competent, qualified people who, by the way, dig deeper and deeper into their own salary for classroom supplies.
My district may be an anomaly in your seemingly omniscient view of the entire nation's failed public school system, but I'll gladly put the achievement and discipline of my son against that of any student of the same grade from any of the private schools in my area.
Just giving them more only encourages less accountability.
So yes, there WERE crickets!
As often as I get told to essentially "shut up" and then I get a "crickets", well, when do you see me dodge a direct question?
And yes, you are civil and never name call and I did not blow you off. Your posts are substantive and deserve a response.
The fact that you didn't figure it out doesn't mean that there were no absence of a reply, which is what crickets means - an absence of a reply to a specific post.
"Crickets" means that it's so silent that one could hear crickets.
And it's not "my" term, and I'm not Sue in any case - but thanks for throwing in the personal attack to show everyone that you can't really defend your actions (or inactions) here.
And when do we see you dodge a direct question? Really? You want to assert that you don't dodge direct questions all the time?
Because you never got back to us on your unhinged lies and mess on this thread from the other day, did you Sue?
It's NOT my pattern to behave in that same way.
It IS your pattern to behave that way, yet you asserted above that it's NOT your behavior! I called you on that LIE. You can't accuse ME of similar bad behavior pattern. Yet you TRY to assert there's some equivalency without ever actually acknowledging that YOU suffer from that behavior. What a doofus!
Just giving them more only encourages less accountability.
The wealthy already have the opportunity to seek better education for their children and wouldn't see vouchers as the chance to do that.
The private schools have proven it delivers a better product than most public schools, with fewer resources and at a much lower cost. Why is that? Little if any parental involvement in public schooling is required, low or no personal investment means their kids will be not be encouraged to succeed academically either.
Make the parents choose, get involved, see what is happening on school boards and in the classroom and demand they step up. Give them vouchers to move, between public, private, charter and if their kids fail, don't show up then hit them with fines to force them to make sure kids are working up to standards.
I never want to hear you talk about getting government off your back when you spout crap like this: "Make the parents choose, get involved, see what is happening on school boards and in the classroom and demand they step up."
You're a lousy authoritarian, jacka**. Just own it. You have no problem with government telling people what to do, so long as it fits your rightwing agenda.
You are a piece of work.
I'm not talking about government on anyone's back. We already try through law to make parents control their kids. I just think so many are passive enough to let others educate and dictate the how, when, where, quality of their kids' education.
Making parents take personal responsibility for their actions and children in taking advantage is getting government off their backs. If they choose to ignore the benefits of education, getting their kids up for school, behave properly, then why should they continue to benefit from free education?
I believe that if parents see that they should be more involved, ie because of the costs but moreso the benefits of making certain their kids gets an education, job, and can become a productive citizen, then the vast majority will do what it takes. Government controlled passivity in getting an education, enslaves people to a life of government dependency because the numbers show it. In dc, less than 50% of students ever graduate? Where does that leave them?
But if a parent just has to make choices about where, when, etc. their child will be educated, the process of engagement in their child's education has begun. And my guess is, they will see the benefit of then looking at the classroom, school board agendas because they'll want to choose wisely for their children.
I'm not talking about government on anyone's back. We already try through law to make parents control their kids. I just think so many are passive enough to let others educate and dictate the how, when, where, quality of their kids' education.
Making parents take personal responsibility for their actions and children in taking advantage is getting government off their backs. If they choose to ignore the benefits of education, getting their kids up for school, behave properly, then why should they continue to benefit from free education?
I believe that if parents see that they should be more involved, ie because of the costs but moreso the benefits of making certain their kids gets an education, job, and can become a productive citizen, then the vast majority will do what it takes. Government controlled passivity in getting an education, enslaves people to a life of government dependency because the numbers show it. In dc, less than 50% of students ever graduate? Where does that leave them?
But if a parent just has to make choices about where, when, etc. their child will be educated, the process of engagement in their child's education has begun. And my guess is, they will see the benefit of then looking at the classroom, school board agendas because they'll want to choose wisely for their children.
Too late. Just own it. At the core of your heart resides a little fascist dictator who burns to bend society to his will.
Wanting individuals to succeed, enjoy the liberty this country was founded on and with that freedom, enjoy the results of them taking personal responsibility over the outcome of their character and lives is the kind of bending I wish more would do!
Wow, what an incredibly controversial statement that is!! And so, so, anti-liberal.
Do you have any ideas how many thumbs down you're going to get for that far out wacked out notion?
Besides, if making sense is what ticks them off, then let's enjoy torturing them!
I want small government, not 'no' government. This government overtake of significant parts of the economy is anything but American.
Conservatives want individuals to be free of government regulation that stifles the creation of wealth and economic freedom. People need to see that taking care of themselves is a better way than the left's view of a nanny state that enslaves individuals. Rather than them being 'screwed' and not caring, I think individuals should be free agents of their own destiny.
This administration's determination to end this program is clearly intended to support the teacher's union who fight vouchers over the needs of poor kids, and getting them out of a cycle of poor education and poverty.
What is annoying to you again?
You hide under the guise of personal responsability, but when have you admitted error? when has your hero Rush ever apologized and put up with his errors? "Conservtaives" have shown themselves unable to offer solutions without a drop of egotism and only complain especially if things aren't going their way.
The study found no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement overall, or for the high priority group of students who applied from "Schools in Need of Improvement."
So both groups went to schools that required special parental involvement, a charter school requires enrollment process and probably special demands behaviorally. But those 'regular' schools, the ones that are failing were not incorporated into the study.
"Government is corrupt and inefficient, elect us and we'll prove it!"
coleslaw,
What about the conservative plan to give people choice about their education is part of the same old mantra? Here is a simple program that educates kids better and less expensively, why not seek efficiency?
Says NOTHING about using charter schools as the control group. ProudCONman, you are a liar!
If you can link to your source backing up your cost and resources-per-student comparison as it relates to this study I would appreciate it.
And here comes the cons two hours later to show that is indeed what "education" means to them...
- ro
Like so much grist for the mill.
If that's your position, I disagree.
As it pertains to privatizing schools, let's follow your hyper-capitalist bullsh*t to it's logical conclusion. If, as you claim, we live in a world where profits rule, where will that leave our teachers and students; and thus our very future as country, when we are inevitably fed into the for profit meat grinder?
We have seen what the lust for profits has done to our unionized industrial base. We have seen what the lust for profits on Wall St. has done to homeowners from city to city, to town to town. We have watched the lust for profits ruin the lives of commercial airline pilots as they are overworked, underpaid and worn out.
No. I don't want your something for nothing corporate culture running our schools. You'd have to be an imbecile to want that. I don't want a small swarm of corporate entities working our teachers to death, culling out their scholarly souls and giving them nothing but a minimum wage in return with no hope of a secure retirement. Nope. That profits rule, something for nothing bs is not consistent with the kinds of values we should be teaching our kids.
If you can't argue something without misrepresenting, lying, about what the other person says - try and figure out what that says about the weakness of yours.
Grow up.
And stop grousing, you're the one who said, "we in a vastly more competitive world - where profits rule more than they ever did before...
Companies who don't maximize their profits are history." So stop b**ching about be being called on what you said. I lied about nothing.
"f you can't argue something without misrepresenting, lying, about what the other person says - try and figure out what that says about the weakness of yours."
F8*kin' hypocrite. Why don't you take your own advice?
You can choose to wallow in your fantasies of mediocrity while the rest of us get on with it.
It's up to you.
Since you reduce people to abstractions, as mere costs to cut in the name of "global competitiveness," I know you can't comprehend the notion of people taking care of each other, but that is exactly what the union does.
Just because I have empathy for working people, he thinks I'm useless.
F**k him, eternally.
I don't know about you, but that reeks of jealousy. Pure and simple. Or at best, envy.
Any society in history that has concentrated this much wealth at the top has toppled. It's unsustainable. I mean, our founding fathers rebelled against this very form of ruling aristocracy that you champion with your 'profits rule' garbage.
So, you disagree with your own position. How consistent of you to contradict yourself. It's one of your most common logical failings, that you just aren't consistent in your stances.
Find someone else.
What a tool. He thinks that claiming he won't "tutor me" means that he could refute what I said if he only cared to. Baloney. He couldn't. He was inconsistent. That's his only consistency here on this site - that he's inconsistent!
Did you miss where I highlighted the two quotes being contratsed? Or do you see them and can't comprehend what is being highlighted by the two statements.
Either way, you are beyond help and it's best for you to stop trying to pin phony positions on me which fit your narrow minded world view of liberals and conservatives.
Then you linked to my comment highlighting that today's education needs to prepare students to compete globally. And you said that is what education "means to me". Which by your snarkiness you vehemently disagreed with. For which my summary of your position "So you'd rather children be given limited opportunity to mediocre education, narrow their choices so they are ill-equipped to compete?" was 100% accurate.
You can say you were wrong, or feebly try to backtrack, but it's all there.
Which I read as addressing the actual purpose of education. And to which I responded...
And then along comes you to post this...
And after that I can't help. I mean, as you stated above, you can't follow a string of commenst, how can you comprehend such "complex" ideas.
And no, I want kids to get the best education possible, period.
Good, glad you backtracked from what your intentions were earlier. Not really an apology but more than I expected.
F U a-hole. Point to something that indicates I don't care about providing the best possible education to children.
And I see you are no longer trying to say my posts weren't clear.
And to be crystal clear for the moran - I want children (all children regardless of their situation) to receive the best possible education, period.
Whereas it's clear simply desire to create the next generation of employees. Not the same.
You starting to resort to a Roundhouse-esque way of emotionally charged rebuttals. Not really you.
You should read this site called MMFA occasionally - you'd get a clue maybe.
Your Honor Roll Child Should Be More Than Happy To Exchange A's With My Failing Child's F's
Parochial schools still trade on the reputation they had when virtually the entire staff was made up of clergy, who worked for room and board and whose entire lives were focused on their jobs. The current crop of parochial school teachers work for subsistence wages and generally fall into one of three categories: kids right out of college; public school washouts/burnouts; zealots (usually women whose income is supplemental) committed to sectarian education. I can tell you firsthand that the quality of parochial education diminished sharply between my own Catholic education in the 1960s and 1970s and when I last taught in a parochial school.
Independent schools pay somewhat better (usually about 65% of the average public school salary in a decent district) and have better facilities than parochial schools, but the problem is that student performance is skewed by grade inflation, the result of parents’ expectations of the correlation between tuition and grades. Parents don’t spend 20 grand per year for C’s.
Furthermore, neither parochial nor independent schools are bound by state certification requirements or No Child Left Behind, so accountability is very much in question. That could explain why private school students have higher grades but not higher standardized test scores.
The quality of public schools varies wildly because of inequities in funding. Virtually all school districts are funded by property taxes, so more affluent communities ipso facto will have better facilities and can pick the crème de la crème of staff. I live in Chicago, and one local suburban district spends $4500 per student per year, while another less than 15 miles away spends $22,000 per student. That is a glaring disparity.
I realize that anything that smacks of federalism (or what the Tea Party calls “socialism”) is anathema right now, but if there is one facet of government that needs to be federalized, it is education. The gross inequities in funding and the ridiculous disparities in the tests that determine NCLB’s Adequate Yearly Progress (basic skills tests in some states/the ACT in Illinois) demand consistency that only federalization can provide.
Anyway, those are my two cents.