The Education Wonks
Most of the parents I know who have transferred their children to private schools have done so due to school culture issues. These parents want a school that controls the students and does not allow the behaviors that seem to be the right of students in the public schools.
I hate it when they compare things statistically to bygone eras. They need to "massage" in factors like what was actually ON the test and who was taking it and how many of what groups. If we really want to be accurate, we would also compare how many dropped out and thus were not measured back in the day.
Furthermore, what this disgruntled consumer fails to understand is that while more may be spent per student, it is not each individual parent footing the bill for his/her children. That's the beauty of public schools: the expense is shared by the public. Granted, basing funding on income tax means imbalance, but at least the single mother of 3 working 2 jobs is not paying for each individual child's tuition, just her taxes, like the rest of us.
Hard to believe a public school teacher would be promoting such garbage from the privatizers.
First, it is the privatizers that are guilty of the endless, tireless, and shameless attacks. Their goal is tapping into the half trillion tax dollars spent on public education by any means possible. Period.
Second, the writer trots out the tired old "private schools can educate students cheaper than public schools can" line. Comparing private school tuition to per-pupil funding overlooks the endowments, donations, and tithings that supplement private and parochial school funding. Add to tuition the cost of books, uniforms, transportation, and other fees and you quickly see how misleading a statement like that is.
Private schools do not have the high-cost students-- another savings on their part.
The only savings private schools hold over public schools is teacher salaries and benefits. Thank your (gasp) union for being on the good side of that one, colleagues.
The writer also laments that we spend so much more on education today than we did in the 1970's, and test scores are relatively the same. This is patently false, and he was very careful in how he worded his deception. Google "David Berliner and Simpson Paradox" and you will gain insight here.
In a nutshell, white students score higher on standardized tests than do minority students. In 1970 we saw a higher percentage of white students (as compared to the whole) taking the test than we do today. Even though Black, Hispanic, American Indian and White students have seen dramatic increases in their test scores over the past 30 years, since a higher percentage of the students taking the test now (as compared to 30 years ago) are minority, the overall average has not changed much.
Our investment IS paying off, and the privatizers know it.
Finally in his flag-waving moment, the writer states: "Choice, competition and freedom are core values that define what we are about as a nation."
I do not know who he means by "we", but to include me he would need to add opportunity and equity to his list.
The crisis in education is tied to opportunity and equity, not choice.
If our schools were funded properly, if our profession was respected, if we did not have to spend energy fighting opportunists and bad policy, if all students came to us from healthy homes and communities, then we would see the results we all want.
Do not be fooled by these carpetbaggers promising a better education for the poor. Remember, these are the same ones who believe any government agency merely adds to the "welfare state."
Richard Ruelas, whom I have spoken to about education on numerous occasions, does an excellent job revealing the motives here. Sadly, he was not given the same space as the man whose organization actively tries to undermine public schools.
And here, at a public school blogger's site.
Good job.
You know what I like about private schools, charters, and homeschooling? I'm not endlessly flogged and admonished to provide ever more funds to help offset the perpetual penury of public schools due mostly to poor administration, little oversite, and no motivation to change, or to be constantly reminded that teachers are professionals despite not gaining or maintaining jobs based on results and reputation, or told that my uppity opinions are draining precious energy from my child's education. And lastly, I'm not told that my child, or any child, can't get a good education at a public school until all of our various social ills are cured. I'm 100% for public education. It's the public schools I have a problem with. Just like a library is not actually knowledge itself, public schools are not actually education itself. Public education does not necessarily have to take place as it is now.
"So, even after going through statistical gymnastics to account for differences in kid's backgrounds, public schools spend far more to get not much better results." Thus sayeth Ms. Parker. Well, yes, so they do.
Of course, Ms. Parker doesn't explain the whole story. The largest part of any school budget goes to staff salaries, and another enormous chunk to facilities and maintenance. Most private school are not ivy-covered East Coast institutions dating back to the Mayflower with enormous endowments, highly qualified, sheepskinned, and well paid faculty and very high tuition rates. Most operate out of church basements, or facilities that serve other, primary purposes when school is not in session. In short, they have little or no facility or maintenance overhead.
In addition, there are absolutely no educational or qualification requirements for private school teachers, the overwhelming majority of which are employed because they have the correct religious/political orientation and the willingness to imprint that orientation on students for little or no compensation and no benefits.
Interestingly, one doesn't have to look far to find private school or home schooling parents who are imploring school districts to provide their children with the kind of expensive options that private schools commonly don't have, such as athletics, art and music, and or specialized classes. Of course, they expect that this will be provided at no expense.
Private schools don't have to meet expensive state or federal mandates in a wide variety of areas and don't have to accept any student who might, in any way, cause them stress or extra financial costs.
Ultimately, according to Ms. Parker, who may well be well-intentioned, we must provide "opportunity scholarships" (the newest term for vouchers, apparently) for everyone.
Well, I agree with Ms. Parker completel! Let's give very parent a choice, the same choice they have always had and still have: Stay in public school ( or if you think there are problems, go through the political process and make the changes you think worthy) or withdraw and attend the private school of your choice. Of course, as the public is already providing an essentially free education, you don't get to double dip and get public money for private education.
That's the ultimate issue here. There is no lack of choice and never was. The only question? Should the public, providing free education for all, also financially support private--usually sectarian--schools? The Constitution, and common sense, say no.
I do not know where Star Parker lives, but private school tuition in my neck of the woods is far more than 4K per annum, which means that truly poor parents will still not be able to leave these "failing" public schools.
Middle class and wealthy families however, perhaps may be able to leave. But I imagine that the schools they leave are not the "failing" schools, anyway. Vouchers, therefore, damage all public schools. In many parts of the country, where one sends one's children to high school reveals one's religion as well as socio-economic status far more than it reveals a disenchantment with public education. It also provides a way to network with fellow parents, which is as much a consideration as the educational environment. Wealthy people would send their children to these gate-keeper schools regardless of any vouchers they may obtain-- the money back is really yet another tax break for something these parents would do anyway.
Let's also remember that, if you look at the data another way, one of the characteristics of private schools that enhances their scores on NAEP is their exclusive nature. As was mentioned previously, private schools don't have to take everybody. They may discriminate (and I'm also using the classical meaning of the term here). They don't have to provide special ed services to 25% of their students, for instance. To be blunt, that is often why many people want their children in private schools-- to escape behaviorally or emotionally or academically challenged students whom they see as damaging the learning environment for all.
However, if vouchers were really put into place, the public schools would collapse in many areas. People would have no CHOICE but to send their children to private schools. In the marketplace, what happens to price when there is no competition?
Ah, Joe Thomas. Welcome back 
"Equity" is educational code for socialism, Joe. It takes "culture" out of the equation--something lefties insist is sacrosanct--and insists on equal outcomes. That removes the individual element from the equation, and the individual element relies in part on culture. Let's not pretend there isn't a culture of poverty, Joe.
I'm all for equal opportunity. "Equity", though? You can have it. It's not for me.
Joe Thomas said, Hard to believe a public school teacher would be promoting such garbage from the privatizers.
Hi Joe,
It's good to hear from you again.
Even a cursory reading of the post shows that we did not "promote" Star Parker's argument.
What we did was present Parker's opinions and leave it to our readers to decide for themselves whether or not they had merit.
We included a link to columnist Richard Ruelas, in order to present the other side.
It's all about the Free Exchange of Thoughts and Ideas.
Remember?
I think, though, that Joe made points not made in Ruelas' article:
-the relative qualifications of public and private school teachers.
-the fact that the expenses Ms. Parker frets over are the salaries and benefits of public school teachers
-the fact that private school teachers exclusively teach the childxren of proactive parents, among other things.
Also, Mr. Ruelas was not featured as prominently as Ms. Parker. This is a new argument from the likes of Parker and Tierney, who'd previously maintained private schools were plainly superior.
Two comments on this. First of all, it seems to me that private schools have a huge natural advantage over public schools: nearly all of the parents are paying to send their kids to those schools. It seems reasonable to assume that nearly every child who goes to a private school comes from a home where education is a priority. (If you're a public school teacher, imagine what those classroom environments must be like.) That is not the case in public schools, especially the so-called failing ones. That being the case, private schools should absolutely blow public schools away on test scores, no matter how you do the study. I suspect that the reason they don't is that a lot of the teachers in those bargain basement private schools probably aren't that great.
My second point has to do with Miller Smith's comment. I think he has a very strong point, but I wish people like him would push the idea of giving teachers in public schools the same power in our classrooms that teachers in private schools have. If we have any disruptive or blatantly apathetic students, give us the power to remove them. If someone is going to ask those of us in public schools to compete with private schools, then give us the same powers they have to handle students who can make it impossible for others to learn. THAT would be competition.
I understand Dennis's point, but I have another to add. I think many of us can actually deal with troublesome kids, and that is an advantage of good public school teachers.
And as for Mr. Smith's comment, which I've just now scrolled back and read--kids have no right to bad behavior in my classroom.
I know of now self-respecting teacher who'd say otherwise.
My god, any argument, even contradictory ones, is used to defend public schools against any kind of change. Private schools are at once elitist and mediocre. We're to respect teachers, but not ones who work in the private sector, they're mediocre pawns working in dirty basements. We parents should be highly involved in our children's education, but not to the point of actually determining what sort of education our children get. We have to change school from the top down-you know, let the experts handle things, forget activism and individual choice.
My favorite is the argument that parents shouldn't pull their children out of a particular public school because it will leave the poor behind in that failing school. This would be unfair and result in unequal educational opportunities. An Unequal opportunity if private and charters were better, but this latest study, and several respondents, claim private schools aren't any better. But, if private schools are no better, the "poor" left behind will still have the same chances for a decent education. Which is it? Are public schools as good as private? Or would leaving behind some kids in a poor public school be bad? And if the school is actually bad, why leave anyone in it?
What's wrong with the idea of a more flexible and dynamic public education system? I imagine a system that incorporates most schools--charters, public, private, hsing. All these groups working to satisfy the wide variety of needs and desires of their communities. At least something more sophisticated and modern than the medieval guild mentality we have now. So what if parents want to pick and choose what services they'd like from the public schools. We're the customers. It is our children that the education is supposed to be provided for. We're not here for the teachers' convenience. Teachers and admins have to work with the funds they get, with the population that attends their schools, and with the desires of those they supposedly serve.
As a public school instructor I'm obligated to meet the demands of the state, not the demands of the parents. I get evaluated, rehired or fired based on how well my students score on the state assessments, not customer satisfaction. Most people don't seem to acknowledge this when they enroll their kids at a public school.
My state offered free summer school to
sophomores who failed our high stakes graduation test.
Our district provided free transportation to the free summer school.
Less than 30% of the failing students in our state took advanage of this opportunity.
I'm not sure which comments SLM's last comment was directed to, but I want him to know this about this public school teacher:
1. If you want competition, fine. Then give those of us in public schools the same power in dealing with troublesome students as private schools have. If you are willing to do that, then I say bring those private schools on.
2. I do believe public school teachers, as a whole, are probably better than private school teachers. As I said in my previous comment, private schools have a huge natural advantage, because they are dealing with students who are almost all coming from families to whom education is a priority. Anyone who has ever run a classroom knows that the make-up of the students in a class is very important. In that situation, you should be able to provide a superior education for everybody. If private schools are unable to do that, as the study being discussed indicates, you have to ask why.
3. I have said in numerous comments and posts that I believe principals should be able to keep their best teachers regardless of seniority, and get rid of their worst ones regardless of tenure. Please don't assume that everyone who works in public schools opposes any change.
To NYC Educator: If you feel that you are able to effectively handle even the most disruptive students, then you have my admiration. It's certainly possible that you can, because I've known some other teachers who can. But most public school teachers have had to deal with some students who they can't handle effectively. I firmly believe we need the power to remove those students from our classes. I've had a couple of posts on this topic, but suffice it to say that I believe this would greatly help students whose education is lessened or even ruined by kids who won't try and won't behave. I also believe that many of the troublesome kids, themselves, would be helped. If they knew they had to try and they had to behave in order to stay in school, many of them would do just that.
Hi NYC Educator. Uh...in Prince George's County, Maryland, a child has the right to return to class after physically assaulting the teacher. As in grabbing the teacher's hair and banging her head on the desk. Retuened to class two days later. No action taken. Teacher forbidden from having the kids removed to another teacher even.
At Bladensburg High in PG county there was two weeks in a row one of more teachers were assaulted every day. Reaction by admin? Kids returned to class. Would you like to know why? The limit on those kid's demographics had been reached and the school was not allowed to suspend or expell any more of that demographic. The federal judge who has controlled PG county since bussing is still in control via lawsuits from a certain advocacy group.
Oh, and a kid calling you a m*therf*cker in class? They are responding to your demographic and you just need to understand.
Don't believe me? Go to the PC county website (www.pgcps.org) and click on schools at the top. Go to the high schools and then to websites for the high schools and start going through the emails of teachers. Write a whole bunch of those teachers about what Miller Smith just said and ask them their stories. You'll get a real taste of what goes on and what teachers CAN'T do about mean and disruptive kids in class.
Dennis... what do we do with the students we remove from the classroom?
Where do they go?
Hi Joe. I need to do a post on this, because it is important, but I'll try to briefly give some options.
First of all, the priority must be to allow kids who do have a desire to learn to be able to do that. If we really believe education is important, we shouldn't be putting disruptive and blatantly apathetic kids into their classroom simply because we don't have anywhere else to put them. So my first answer to your question, for kids who are destroying the education of others or gaining nothing because they won't try, is anywhere but the classroom. That being said, here are the other options:
1. As I said in my second comment, I'm convinced that many of the kids who are disruptive and apathetic enough to deserve being removed, would improve greatly if they knew there was actually a chance of being kicked out.
2. I am all for programs encouraging kids to come back if they ever change their minds and decide that education has something to offer.
3. Homeschooling (There's all kinds of materials on the Internet.)
4. Alternative Learning Centers. This is probably the most realistic, but what we've got now would have to be expanded. Maybe there would need to be more one on one and small group services, and of course that would cost money. But I would maintain that no matter what we do, we've got to separate these kids from those who want to get an education.
Dennis
1. Of course, teachers ought to be freed up to be actual professionals. That includes having a large say in the curriculum, getting rid of disruptive students, and using their own judgment in the course of educating their students. I believe more educational choices would also mean more choices for teachers. Of course, the flip side of this is less job security and more responsibility for the end results.
2. Another explanation for the results of private school vs public school could be that private schools aren't as selective as anti-school choice advocates like to claim. Had the results shown private schools to be much better, would you then be for vouchers? I bet it wouldn't matter either way. The arguments would just be different.
3. Who's standing in the way of principals being able to use their own judgment to hire, to evaluate, and to fire teachers, if not the people responsible for running our current public school system? School choice would provide leverage for parents and teachers to deal from a stronger position with public schools.
I'm all for teachers. I believe they could have so much more under a system that allowed more freedom in the public education realm. They could be real professionals, relying on their results and reputations to guide the course of their careers. Perhaps many teachers don't really want that.
As a parent, I would like to see the results of the study in more detail, possibly with the test results for private schools broken down by category, so we could see how the "New England prep school" and parochial/faith-based schools did on the tests as two separate lines instead of one single average. I do not think we are getting the whole picture here.
To support what Ms. Cornelius has said, my son has Aspergers/PDD. A few years ago he applied to a big-$$ "prep" school and was turned down because, during his two visits, he hadn't made any friends among the students. Basically he was turned down for having Aspergers. His IQ is in the gifted range and he did more than well on the entrance test. I consider it a blessing in disguise, because, since then, we received a great deal of help and support from our public school and there's more to come. I think we need to review individual schools and/or categories of school on a case-by-case basis before we jump to any conclusions. To just say that private schools are better than the public is not enough.
SLM, thank you for your response.
As I've said in previous comments and posts, I believe the make-up of the students in a class is one of the most important factors determining the learning that takes place there--possibly even more important than the quality of the teacher. As someone who believes in public schools, vouchers scare me because I believe the people most likely to use them to send their kids to private schools are those parents who care about their kids education. Obviously, this wouldn't improve the make-up of the students in public school classrooms.
In other comments and posts that I've made I've said that I can't oppose vouchers in those areas where test scores and dropout rates are miserable. I think our number one priority must be to create a decent learning environment for kids who truly want to learn. I don't want to see motivated kids stuck in classrooms that resemble three-ring circuses just because vouchers scare me.
But it really bothers me that so many people groups all public schools in the same boat as our worst performing schools. My school is a good one, and I think I've got evidence to prove that. I know that there are thousands of public schools as good as mine, because there's no evidence that we are in a league of our own. But with the constant attacks on public schools, and with the push for vouchers, I'm really afraid that the picture of public schools that is being painted by our critics will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Regarding principals having the power to keep their best teachers and get rid of their worst ones, all I can personally do about that is to speak out, and I've written a book in which I do exactly that. Since I wrote it, I've found there are more public school teachers who support that position than I'd realized.
You certainly have every right to favor vouchers, but I really wish people like you would also demand that public school teachers be given the power to control their classrooms. If there is going to be competition in education, I want us to be able to compete without having the equivalent of one hand tied behind our backs.
Miller,
I don't doubt what you say is true. And it's plainly idiotic on the face of it, as is the administrator who allows it, and who's doing the kids no favors.
It would be tough for me, though, to categorize such lunacy as typical of public schools. My district is not known as precisely the easiest in the country, and nothing of that sort occurs in my classroom.
I would make it my mission in life to make sure anything resembling it did not happen twice. This would be very inconvenient for the offending student, his or her family, and anyone about whose opinion that student was concerned.
Dennis
People like me are demanding changes. And we've had some effect. The public school system and its advocates just don't like the results--vouchers, charters, magnates, NCLB, etc. Other than receiving more funds, I can't think of any proposed changes that the current system would voluntarily adopt. Even those in the system admit they can't reform public schools without the rest of us demanding changes. Good faith efforts are all that are promised from the current system.
I know some private schools have better teachers - like the one that kept hiring the best teachers away from the public school system I once went to. Now, that was a rather pricy place catering to the kids of bankers, lawyers, and judges, but I doubt that even after accounting for 30-some years of inflation it had a per pupil budget as high as the $15,000 or more I hear of in some very low-performing public school systems.
As for the claims about cherrypicking students: one family I know sent their kids to that private school because they were hellions and the public schools couldn't handle them. The headmaster used to be one of my teachers, and I have no doubt he could straighten them out - with the support of their family, of course. It is considerably harder when the parents don't care that their kids are neither learning anything in school nor allowing the rest of the students to learn, but such kids do not belong in a regular classroom.
The other half of that problem is the liberal/leftist ideology that has permeated the public education establishment that prevents the public schools from either expelling kids that have no interest in learning, or from dealing with them harshly enough to maybe get their attention. (Unless they are white middle-class kids, and then the administrators land like a ton of bricks for minor infractions.)
Anyhow, averaging the performance and cost structure of all private schools is like averaging the crop yield of apple, orange, and cherry orchards. There might not be one school out there that actually fits the average, because a whole lot of different schools using different methods to pursue different goals are being lumped together. There are the conservative Christian schools, which typically run on a shoestring, and academic excellence is NOT their goal. But I'll bet they don't have kids disrupting the classes or robbing and beating up their classmates, and they probably do manage to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic to nearly everyone before they reach high school age - there are too many public schools that can't match that record. Catholic schools are better funded and better academically, with similar discipline, but I doubt that many of them have as big a budget per pupil as the nearby public schools. I do know non-religious parents that have put their kids in Catholic schools for the stronger discipline and in expectation of better academic results. And there are the high-priced, high-budget private schools, that can manage to stuff even someone as profoundly uninterested in learning as GW Bush with enough knowledge to make it at an Ivy League school...
What you probably won't find is a private school that tries to be the same as public schools. What would be the point of paying $8-12,000 tuition to get a school like the "free" one? It usually costs less to move to somewhere with a decent public school. On the other hand, with vouchers there would be a huge demand for private schools that resemble a well-run public school.
Mark M.: I agree with you about the kids who don't belong in a regular classroom, but you are wrong about why it is so hard to discipline them. It is not leftist ideology, it is a series of Supreme Court rulings made in the late 60s and early 70s. These decisions declared education to be a property right that could not be taken away without due process of law. They also said that any school official who deprived a student of his or her property rights without giving due process, and knew it or should have known it could be sued. State legislatures and Congress have followed this up with legislation that has reinforced this concept. Minnesota's Fair Pupil Dismissal Act is pages and pages, and it provides for court hearings, lawyers, and thousands of dollars anytime a school considers expelling a student. If the school succeeds in expelling the student, it is then responsible for paying for an alternate education. That's why public schools are forced to handle our worst students--white, black, Asian, Latino, or Native American--with kid gloves. And that is insanity! I really wish people like you would help us to change that.
SLM, you say you are for changes and that's fine. Some of the changes you propose don't thrill me, but all I ask is that you throw one more into the bag of reforms you are pushing: give public school teachers the power to remove kids who won't try and won't behave from their classes.
And thanks for this discussion. I always enjoy going back and forth with people who know how to disagree without being disagreeable.
Dennis
It seems funny to even have to say that of course teachers should be able to get disruptive students out of the classroom. Why not bring back those schools for disruptive kids, reform schools I think?
I want to reform the delivery of education and move away from assigned schools. I want those with firm ideas and experience on what would work to be freed up to run schools outside of the current system's control. Then I, as a parent, or a student, or a teacher, want to be able to decide which of several different schools would best suit me. This is how advanced education works. This is how most services work. This is how it already is in some parts of the country. Those cities with lots of different types of public schools, they brag about their education system. They sell their progressive school system to prospective residents and companies. Parents salivate at the prospect of being able to buy a house in such an area. Why can't we make it easier to provide a variety of schools for everyone?
God forbid if public school advocates actually get what they want. No choices, no leverage to change existing schools, continued assigned schools regardless of quality. I know, the system is working hard to find just what teaching method will work for all students, everywhere.
I also enjoy a good debate without being called names. Thanks.
Thanks, SLM. I'm putting together a post on what we could do with kids who get kicked out of public schools, and you just added an option for me. Other than that, as Bill O'Reilly would say, I'm going to give you the last word on this one. Only I'm actually going to give you the last word!
This may fall on deaf ears, but I wanted to share with Darren a different definition of equity. I specifically used equity instead of equality because of what I recently heard Kimberly Oliver say in her Teacher of the Year speech in front of the NEA Representative Assembly:
"As educators we need to be clear on what equity means. Equity means having high expectations for all students, regardless of their race, their ethnicity, the language spoken, or their socioeconomic status. Equity means believing all children can learn and achieve at high levels, given the appropriate time and resources, and knowing, when that doesn't happen, that we have to look at ourselves and ask, what can we do better? What other resources can we use to help bring out the best in every child."
If that is what you mean by socialism, Darren-- having the high expectation that all kids can learn-- then I am all for it.
She goes on to address exactly what you were proposing:
"We also need to know that equity doesn't mean having the same thing for every child. In fact, it means having enough courage to say, yes, we do need to have more funds, more resources, and more programs invested for our neediest schools and our neediest learners. We need to do that just to level the playing field and begin to bridge the achievement gaps."
She was very inspiring, especially since she won the award at such an early point in her career. My children would be lucky to have such a dedicated teacher.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
