There has been a couple of studies done now, and well, guess what? Private schools don't do any better than public schools in the US for education!

Excerpts as follows salient to the questions posed later:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/educatio...amp;oref=slogin

The report, which compared fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math scores in 2003 from nearly 7,000 public schools and more than 530 private schools, also found that conservative Christian schools lagged significantly behind public schools on eighth-grade math


Its release, on a summer Friday, was made with without a news conference or comment from Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.


Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, the union for millions of teachers, said the findings showed that public schools were “doing an outstanding job” and that if the results had been favorable to private schools, “there would have been press conferences and glowing statements about private schools.”
“The administration has been giving public schools a beating since the beginning” to advance his political agenda, Mr. Weaver said, of promoting charter schools and taxpayer-financed vouchers for private schools as alternatives to failing traditional public schools.

The report mirrors and expands on similar findings this year by Christopher and Sarah Theule Lubienski, a husband-and-wife team at the University of Illinois who examined just math scores. The new study looked at reading scores, too.


and one last very important point in the article:

Findings favorable to private schools would likely have given a lift to administration efforts to offer children in ailing public schools the option of attending private schools.
An Education Department official who insisted on anonymity because of the climate surrounding the report, said researchers were "extra cautious" in reviewing it and were aware of its “political sensitivity.”
The official said the warning against drawing unsupported conclusions was expanded somewhat as the report went through in the review.


1) Given the super uber ultra peer review this report was vetted through- why do you think private schools do no better than public schools?

2) If better education is the reason for private school vouchers, and given that conservative christian schools are the worst educated of all schools- should a stake finally be driven through the heart of this whole "voucher" concept-OR

3) Is the school voucher idea more of a back door way for the christian church to be able to indoctrinate new followers, rather than actual education being the motive?

the report summary

1) Given the super uber ultra peer review this report was vetted through- why do you think private schools do no better than public schools?

I don't think the study says that. In all four categories private schools outperformed public schools prior to adjustment.

With adjustment is was a wash. Maybe someone else can explain the adjusting factors by digging below the report summary.

Private schools reveal the best and worst aspects of freedom of choice for our children's education. If you are concerned about your children getting over exposed to worldly and secular interests you can send your children to a school that supports fundamentalist christian values. But some of those schools tend to underpay to the point where the positions are barely subsidized volunteer positions. While some of the teachers are talented with a commitment to a calling, many others are not qualified for their task and are working more on heart than ability.

Private schools do have some significant home court advantages in studies like this. They had to agree to participate and I don;ta think the same was true of the public schools. When they broke things down they did not take into account separately independent secular college prep schools. I believe the discrepancy for the eighth grade level would be wuquiteignificant there. Also there was not a split between charter and non-charter public shools. This difference would have been interesting to see.

In answer to this question, I don;ta think the question accurately depicts the conclusions of the study.

2) If better education is the reason for private school vouchers, and given that conservative christian schools are the worst educated of all schools- should a stake finally be driven through the heart of this whole "voucher" concept-OR

I wonder if many people know that a major movement for supporting public school education in this country came from nativists (including the very popular KKK in the 1920s) who were concerned that if different groups had choices about their children;s education they would be in foreign language schools and in the catholic school system which they hoped to destroy. Better education is one of the reasons for the voucher movement. Also some evangelical christians feel that their values are attacked in the public school system and don;ta want to contribute to that system. Perhaps if their was a voucher system these schools would get better funded and perform better in some areas than they do now. But then again this would be funnelling federal money to faith based institutions. Ah a conundrum.

But no, this is not a damning stake that should be driven through the concept of independent schools. Let's isolate the schools that say they deliver a superior product for college preparation and see what the results are there.

3) Is the school voucher idea more of a back door way for the christian church to be able to indoctrinate new followers, rather than actual education being the motive?

I think first the conservative christian movement would rather have a better alternative to suit their educational needs than the present public school system. I think the fundamentalist christian school movement would always have some educational flaws, but I do see their desire to not fund or participate in the present public school as valid. Were it up to me I would not go to vouchers or encourage the depletion of resources from our public schools. But the public education system, like the national health system, is failing and a dramatic remedy appears to likely be the ended result that will be needed.

1) Given the super uber ultra peer review this report was vetted through- why do you think private schools do no better than public schools?

Being a student tof the Catholic School system for 12 years, I think i can comment on the subject as well as any. I enjoyed my education in the Catholic school system for I believe that they instilled in me a sense of character that I may not have gotten in public schools. I had friends who went to public school and the experience that they shared seemed a lot different than mine.

Here is what I learned. In no way did i ever feel "indoctrinated" with christian values. Not in elementary school and not in high school. I was taught to understand my religion and learn its history and its concepts. I can not speak for other schools, but mine was not in the business of turning out christian robots.

Another thing i learned is that the curriculum of private and public schools were different. For instance in 8th grade, public school kids were learning basic algebra while i did not. I had to wait until high school for that. But other than that, the curriculum wasn't all that different.

Public school kids may perform better on tests or equal (i guess this is still i dispute), I think that if a test was done on EQ or emotional intelligence, that private schools would perform higher than public schools. Thats because the difference in atmosphere and learning.

2) If better education is the reason for private school vouchers, and given that conservative christian schools are the worst educated of all schools- should a stake finally be driven through the heart of this whole "voucher" concept-OR

No. Parents should be able to choose where they want to send their kids. Children will probably perform best in situations where they are the most comfortable and the parents should have an opportunity to see that that is done.

3) Is the school voucher idea more of a back door way for the christian church to be able to indoctrinate new followers, rather than actual education being the motive?

No. Believe it or not, priests and nuns are not into indoctrination and are actually very nice people. Atleast from my Roman Catholic perpsective thats what I know for i can't speak for other denominations. I don't understand how one can make the argument that someone who has given up their livelihood and decided to devote their time to helping the needy and serving God could somehow be guilty of "indoctrination." Not everyone who comes out of a private christian institution comes out a bible-thumping, anti-abortion, homophobe.

I need to preface what I say with the assertion that I am totally for doing what we can to ensure quality education in our public schools. While choice is always an important concept in a society which considers itself free, rendering our next generations competent and confident to carry the torch as wage earners, thinkers, creators and can-do people is at least equally important.

1) Given the super uber ultra peer review this report was vetted through- why do you think private schools do no better than public schools?

This study was probably as good as it gets, but at that it is subject to limitations. As with the SAT, certain criteria are measured to show a student's readiness or lack of readiness to continue education on a higher level, but there are other criteria that are not measured which also matter, like: a willingness to work as a team, determination to persevere in the face of disappointments or setbacks, a sense of hope or optimism that what the student does will actually make a difference, etc.

These are some of the goals that cannot be measured by testing which lederuvdapac alluded to in his post.

2) If better education is the reason for private school vouchers, and given that conservative christian schools are the worst educated of all schools- should a stake finally be driven through the heart of this whole "voucher" concept-OR

3) Is the school voucher idea more of a back door way for the christian church to be able to indoctrinate new followers, rather than actual education being the motive?

What the parents of private school students want their children to learn is what the teachers teach. It isn't necessarily what external standards dictate, however relevant these standards are in the everyday world.

I agree that there are a lot of schools, particularly with "Christian" in their name, whose teachers and curricula are not of the same high caliber as those of public schools. Some of them probably are little more than schools of indoctrination with the three R's thrown in for good measure. But it is important to remember that it was religious institutions that fostered much of the learning in Europe and produced many great thinkers, and that the tradition has carried on here in the United States. Private schools must be examined individually to determine whether they belong in the former category, or in the company of the latter.

I am against school vouchers, and this is why:

Regardless of whether a child attends a public school, unless the family practices total separatism from the society around them (such as Amish or "Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints"), they are going to be affected by contact with children and parents who attended public schools. These other people will, in large part, be dealing with them according to the education and standards instilled in them from public education. In theory, the better the education and the higher the standards that these products of public schools have been exposed to, the better their conduct will be toward those who attended the private schools.

These public school graduates will be working beside them, transacting business with them, enacting legislation for them, enforcing the law, fighting for them...you get the picture. None of us can afford to have the public education system "go to hell" because funding is cut back by those who want to pay only for their kids to go to Christian school (or any other denomination, for that matter). We all need to be able to get along with each other, at least until the Rapture...

To cut back funding for public education for school vouchers is a mistake. I look at some of the books my daughter used, and they were pretty beaten up after four or five students had them in their possession. Every year we would have to make book covers out of paper grocery bags to protect them for just a little longer. And our school district is relatively well-funded.

I find it highly suspect especially when the NEA is involved.

Just about anything private is usually better than anything public. Public transportation vs private for example.

Being private usually means that the folks can afford the service and so it's usually better. Look at the best universitites, private Us are the best. And you can't argue that the best schools are public when most of the prestigious schools in the country are private. Just look at where the majority of people at Ivey League schools come from.

In the end, it's really about money. Those with money tend to do better in school. That's why vouchers are a joke because it's not the issue of choice but how much the parents care. Parents that spend $1000s on tuition....care more!

To show perspective, the charter schools in Detroit have been doing miserably, showing that just having "choice" doesn't mean the difference between a public school. But the public schools in the rich Oakland County area are probably as good as many private schools.....because they have money.


The voucher issue is just from people who don't want to pay for other people's education when they send their kids to a private school.

Just an addendum to what I wrote previously:

The problem we had with our daughter's public middle school was the attitudes of her fellow schoolmates. There are several economically well-off families here, and there is a group of kids who think they're so much better than others because they wear Hollister, Aeropostale, and Abercrombie & Fitch clothing. Our daughter, who is overweight but not grossly so, tried to fit in during the sixth grade, but she gave up. She was constantly being taunted and ridiculed by the children of the parents who could afford the trendy clothing, and she became quite depressed. Her grades plummeted, even though she is very bright and capable of doing well. I made sure to write to the administration of the middle school and remind them of the responsibility they have in all of this.

As a consequence, our daughter will be attending a charter school this fall. It is part of the public school system, so there is no tuition charged. It prides itself on readying students for a career whether they decide to go on to college or not. What is particularly good is that the students wear uniforms, so no distinctions are drawn as to who wears the cool clothing and who doesn't.

I can certainly understand circumstances where parents would want to pull their kids out of a regular public school, especially where the school's administration cannot or will not address the attitudes of students toward other students. We started our daughter with Montessori schooling, and she continued there until we could no longer afford the tuition. That is when her public school education began, and until the last two years or so, she was benefitting from that educational experience.

If we had to pay tuition for our daughter to attend this charter school, I am sure we would want a voucher, but as long as we are living in this community, we must for practical purposes pay the taxes and have a stake in the educations of those children as well. After all, she might end up marrying (!) another product of the public school system someday.

Hmm.. This makes absolutely no sense. By all measures Public schools are more affordable than Private schools. Additionally, public transportation is more affordable than private transportation. Also in cities with a fully implemented public transportation system like Chicago, New York, London, Boston, etc. It is bar-none more convenient, quicker, creates less polutants, and signficantly less expensive than private transportation.

Also instead of attacking any of the specific intelligent arguments presented in this study, you simply dismiss it off hand because it's related to the NEA.



Again, this completely from left field. State Schools actually are the best at many specific disciplines. Specifically, USC and their film program is better than any of the Ivy League's by just about any measure.

UC: Berkely, Umass: Amherst, and may other top higher educational schools are consistently ranked up with Ivy League schools, and the Ivy Leagues are older, better established some signficantly older than the United States itself.



Well I'm glad we agree with the fundamental point of this topic. But really, Private is certainly not any better than public, even in the specific areas you chose to cite! Private police, private ambulances, private healthcare (vs nationalized), these are all things that are in the least very debatebly better served to the people in a public manifestation. The idea that Private is the answer to everythign is just as absurd as the state running everything is the answer. Each service needs to be taken and analyzed in a unique way.

The adjustment is by socio-economic status- rich kids in public schools vs rich kids in public schools- when all things are equal- public does just as well or better than private.

having gone to the fundamentalist christian private school myself - a program called "ACE"- Accelerated Christian Education- it was an awful education- except in reading. You had to read alot more than you would normally in public schools- lots and lots of indoctrination stuff , horrible in math and science.

Would you rather have to walk 1/2 a mile to a train/bus stop, sit in a urine-stink train, have the possibility of being mugged.....even sit in a vomit-stained cab? Or walk out your door into your own private AUTO-MO-BEEEL and drive to the door of whereever you want to go?

In terms of quality of life, private transportation is more of a luxury than riding the bus.



Yep. They're a shill for public education, nuff said.



Yeah, but you're admitting private schools are better. Check out Newsweek's list.




No, private isn't the key to everything. I never said that. I just said if you can afford to go private then the service itself is most likely better than a public service.

And what about home schooling?? I personally think if you have full time parents with half-a-brain home schooling is far better than public education. I think back to my public education and it seems like I spent 1/2 the day walking around the school, taking attendance or just sitting there talking with friends. There was a ton of wasted time and most of the teachers didn't care.

I'll probably homeschool my kids if I get the chance. One-on-one is sweet and you can avoid contact with delinquints.



http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp


I remember our school instituted an exit exam and as seniors we had to take it to graduate. I remember correcting all the errors in it. It was embarassing that our teachers were that stupid.

The key to education is being able to teach yourself. I totally love the line from Good Will Hunting where he says you could have had the same Harvard education by paying some past dues on a library card.

To throw in here a recent article.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14466095/


I'm not a big fan of choice or vouchers, to me it's just an excuse for the wealthy to avoid paying into public education.

1) Given the super uber ultra peer review this report was vetted through- why do you think private schools do no better than public schools?

Because, given all things being equal, all things turn out to be equal. It's really pretty simple.

2) If better education is the reason for private school vouchers, and given that conservative christian schools are the worst educated of all schools- should a stake finally be driven through the heart of this whole "voucher" concept-OR

Yeah, it's happening. Reflected in the answers to this question is the prejudice that all things public are inferior to all things private.

I liked the DC Metro. I liked the Minneapolis bus system. I could live with just a motorcycle in Mpls., and you know how the winters are. Or if not, then you can imagine. PT saved me money, allowed me to do other things while in transit, and didn't detract from my quality of life at all.

Contrast this with being in bumper-bumper traffic, caught on the beltway among a throng of speeders (talking 80-90 mph a few inches apart), multi-vehicle collisions and all the other disadvantages of the private vehicle that I could go on and on about, but y'all know this stuff.

3) Is the school voucher idea more of a back door way for the christian church to be able to indoctrinate new followers, rather than actual education being the motive?

No, I'll go along with this being an attempt to lower taxes. However, it is also an attempt to funnel tax revenue into the coffers of people who really don't give a hoot about education.

This last part is what's killing vouchers.

I think this is the biggest problem with home school and private school. Your kids NEED contact with delinquents! The real world is full of them. I know quite a few home school kids that are very smart but pretty much socially retarded.

I my self went to a host of private schools until 8th grade and it took a few very shocking years to learn that the real world was a little rough around the edges. Oh and for the record the private schools were for me a waste of time.

What made the biggest difference to me was how I was raised by my parents. The truth is that no matter where you send your kids to school the parent is the ultimate teacher, and is there to help their child make the most out of whatever kind of educational situation they find their self in.

Behind every succesful or delinquent child you will find the corosponding parent regardless of where they went to school.

Sometimes it literally turns my stomach to read this near-sighted rhetoric....

I'll start with a portion of the article, seemingly intentionally left out of the post.



The reality is that this study also said:


UGH! The fact that the NYT posts such hogwash just makes me sick.

The reality is that they used some arbitrary racial and socio-economic factors to attempt to level the playing field, but the data was still about break even.

What does this really say??? One more time... in plain English...Students in private schools typically score higher than those in public schools.

I personally had a public school education, but my parents always intentionally spent beyond their means to live in school districts that would allow us a well-rounded education. The drove old cars, wore old clothes, etc to keep us somewhere safe and sound... albeit in Public Schools (well, and a private school here and there). They bought into districts that would keep us out of gang infested schools, and those where education was secondary to security.

The point about vouchers that liberal rhetoric will NEVER beat is that there would still be an opportunity for kids to stay in Public Schools, but moreover go to those that they deem to be better, as opposed to being locked into their "local" school. If I ever put our kids (none yet, but soon...) in private schools, it would only be in the case that the local school is either not safe, not conducive to their success, or just plain the wrong choice for our family.

Conservative Christian schools fared worse? What criteria made it a "conservative christian school"??? Do Catholic Schools count? Good Lord (no pun intended). You can tell this is a NYT article. Lutheran schools...NEWSFLASH ARE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS. Lutherans ARE CHRISTIANS....hahahaha... come on. Seriously. What was considered a conservative christian school? Catholics? Baptist schools? Wow. This is the most tainted and offbase... ridiculous article I think I've read in the NYT.

The point is that this article's headline says it all... "public schools perform near private schools"... but it left out the fact that this was after "racial and social equalizing". Whatever.

Are vouchers a way for Christian churches to indoctrinate new followers?....
Come on. This is plainly absurd. If vouchers existed, and there were people that didn't want their children going to a Christian school... pure capitalism would dictate that someone would start private schools that didn't entail religion. Another NEWSFLASH... there are private schools like that here in Dallas... as there are I'm sure in other cities.






I'm not a big fan of public education not including choice.

It's just an excuse for the education society to remain apathetic and ineffective.

public education fails often and there are no repercussions. when private schools fail they go out of business. that ought to tell you flat out private schools will do a better job. they have to.

are there good public schools? of course there are. many as good as or better than private schools. what's the difference? money? DC spends more per student than any other sytem, worst schools ever.

the difference is parents. having them. having two of them. having them care. show up etc. perhaps rich people have a vested interest in caring. i don't know. i grew up relatively poor, especially compared to my neighbors and school mates but my parents drilled school's importance into my head and checked my homework and pestered my teachers. in short, they cared.

*typing with one hand. daughter sleeping on right arm.

Ding ding ding!!! Winner winner!!!

This hits the nail on the head. Parental involvement is the number one determinant of a kid's educational success.

What's that got to do with vouchers and private schools? Parents are forced to get involved by accepting a voucher. Even if that involvement is as minimal as picking a school.

Most private schools demand much more from parents than their public counter parts do. They demand fund raisers, they expect participation in extracirriculars, they expect you to come to parent-teacher meetings. For the most part, private schools do more for less money (I've mentioned before my kids' tuition is around $3k per year per child while the Cleveland public schools allocate over $10k per pupil). Money is not the issue--involvement is.

I think aevans176 did an admirable job deconstructing the notion that this study said that the testing made the results the same from both public and private schools. Various "corrections" were applied for various apparent inequalities.

Actually Amlord- he did a positively AWFUL job of deconstructing the science- what he did was attack the mesenger "NY times" "hogwash" and such. To do a GREAT job of decontructing the science- he would have to go to the journal study, research the actual methodology, re-create the methodology, and then see if he got a different result.

That has been the entire basis of the anti debate there- attack the messenger- ignore the science.

I will even jump in first "It is junk science"- it would be nice if someone that ever said that actually went and disproved the article in the journal!

Also Aevens- you have complete choice in schools- you can choose to send your kids to any school you want, You just don't get a 100% tax break for it.

Even the word "school choice" is slanted- as long as the kid is going to school, and the school can prove to the goverment IS an actual school- you have a choice to go to it.

Of course parental involvement is the important part. But that means a whole heck of a lot more than just "picking" a school. If all the parents do is pick a school that is supposedly better than where they are at, that's not really "involvement", is it? If, after selecting a school, the parent still doesn't help with homework, doesn't encourage extra curricular activities, doesn't go to school functions, is the kid really going to do any better than at a public school? Probably not.

And I think that was probably the unspoken part of the study, more than anything else. More about that later.


I challenge this as well, Amlord. I just spent time, based on your assertion, scouring the websites of nearly every private school in my area. Catholic schools, a Jesuit school, a Lutheran school, a couple of Montesori schools. In addition, at one point several years ago, my wife and I considered placing our daughter into a private school, and went to a couple of interviews.

At no point in those interviews was anything mentioned about required attendance of parents at any school function, fund raiser, etc. And in none of the websites I visited, did it say anything about that being a requirement. A couple of them recommended such involvement by parents, but nowhere was it listed as a requirement.


Actually, all Aevans176 did a masterful job of, was in bashing the NYT's around for no apparent reason. They didn't conduct the study, and they didn't make any of the "adjustments" or "corrections" necessary to validate the study on a reasonable comparison. And then he completely blows off the needed corrections with a cavalier "whatever".

Let me give you an example of why simply saying the private schools generally have better test scores, without correcting for socio-economic factors is flawed.

Private School
# of students Income Level Avg Grade Cum. Total
50 100,000+ 90 4500
25 75,000+ 85 2125
15 50,000+ 80 1200
10 25,000+ 75 750
Grand Total 8575
Public School
50 25,000+ 75 3750
25 50,000+ 80 2000
15 75,000+ 85 1275
10 100,000+ 90 900
Grand Total 7925

You'll see in the example that we have two schools of 100 students each. In the private school, the percentage of higher income parents is more than lower income parents. In the public school example, I reversed those incomes. After all, it is reasonable to assume that for the most part, more affluent parents will be not just willing, but more financially able to send their kid to a private school.

Would you agree that it may also be reasonable to assume that parental involvement in those with higher incomes would be probable? Parents, for instance who don't have to work more than one job, may well have more time to give in terms of being involved. Also, those with higher incomes probably have a higher level of education to begin with, and are more acutely aware of the necessity for such.

So, in the examples I have, lets say the grades for each socio-economic level are roughly the same, as the study says. $25,000 income parents have students who do roughly "c" work, let's say; $100,000 income parents have kids that do roughly "a" work, etc.

Now, just looking at the overall scores for each school, you might assume the private school has much better scores. But that's more a product of having a higher level of involvment by parents in in the private school due to a higher percentage level of income and education to begin with over that of the public school.

When you take the individual students in each school by income level, the scores dramatically flatten out, and become nearly identical. That's why you cannot simply take two schools of roughtly the same size, one private and one public, and look at the overall test scores. It's highly misleading, without taking into account factors like the study authors did.

Well this all boils down the real questions of this thread:

1) Why should a family pay for education they are not getting?

2) Should a school system suffer when its enrollees choose to attend elsewhere?

Umm... I didn't attack the science, but moreover showed that the article, and strangely subsequently the study showed that private school students actually out performed public school students.

The reason that I have a problem with the article, is that 95% of the population wouldn't read closely (*ahem-ahem*) enough to see that point. The only way the study could "equalize" the scores was to attach arbitrary societal notions.

It irked me even more that the study made claims about "Conservative Christian" schools, but didn't lump Lutheran or Catholic schools. What exactly did they mean? Are Catholic schools liberal? Good Lord.

I don't even really see this study as science, but moreover a liberal ploy to make a point to folks who aren't studious enough to read past the headline. The fact of the matter is, and even this article showed it, that vouchers might help some people put their kids into private schools where testing is obviously superior.



Umm... not at all. What I was saying was that the NYT took the study and made claims that most people would believe without reading further. The fact is that the article made statements that would lead you to believe that public schools scored higher than private schools. It's just plain untrue.

I believe that often times debates become more of a defense of institutions that people believe in rather than a debate of merits. I will never understand why people believe that the NYT should be able to print "news" with such slanted statements as:


It SHOULD read... "children in public schools generally performed as well or better WHEN ASSIGNED ARBITRARY SOCIAL EQUALIZERS than comparable children in private schools. Heck- even the headline is misleading... and still some people say that the NYT isn't a liberal publication...





A family should have to pay taxes regardless, but a failing public school system should be subject to competition, and allow families to make decisions on where their kids go.

YES-YES-and YES again a school system should suffer when not providing the best education available. If parents move their kids, it surely will be to go to a better school. It's like owning a McDonalds, and Burger King moves in next door... but expecting to not punish McDonald's if it's always slow, dirty, and produces an inadequate product.

2) If better education is the reason for private school vouchers, and given that conservative christian schools are the worst educated of all schools- should a stake finally be driven through the heart of this whole "voucher" concept

First of all, I'm going to echo aevans176's observation that the article gives no indication at all as to what the scientific definition of a "conservative" Chrisitian school is (since it references other Christian schools that apparently aren't "conservative"), so your premise is suspect, at best.

Coming to the meat of the question, I'll say at the outset that I'm not a fan of vouchers, but for different reasons from what you and a few others have been giving. I'm more partial to the idea of full local control. Nonetheless, the reason why school choice is considered an attractive option is that it would foster better competition, and that would increase the quality of education (never assume a static model). Also, it would give parents more of an option to find a school that's best suited to their situation. Who cares if nationally, public schools do well on average, if the one you're actually stuck with is horrible?

3) Is the school voucher idea more of a back door way for the christian church to be able to indoctrinate new followers, rather than actual education being the motive?

That points out another argument in favor of school choice: many parents would prefer not to have their kids indoctrinated by the leftist thinking that dominates many public schools. And the word "indoctrination" really applies in its truest sense is when the indoctrinators have a captive audience, as under the current system.

The study is fatally flawed as an indictment of vouchers. To have any substance in that regard, it would have to directly compare the voucher students' performance to that of the students in the schools that the voucher students would have otherwise attended. In fact, the same concept applies even to the private schools in general, as implied by Blackstone.

No, aevans, I'm sorry, but you showed nothing of the kind.

As with the example I provided, if all you look at are the total scores for private schools vs public schools, then yes, the private schools appear to do better.

But when you take into account things like race/ethincity, school location (inner city vs suburban), parental education levels, income levels, number of books in the home, computer(s) in the home, absentee rates of students, etc., then it becomes clear that private schools do no better in their assessment testing than do public schools.

And while you can call corrections for these variables "arbitrary", are you really going to tell me that these things don't make a difference? Really? That income levels, having a computer to help with homework, having schools in a more suburban setting don't make any difference? Amazing, especially given one of your own claims in an earlier post. More on that in a minute.


Well, except for the fact that the assessment testing between the public and private schools was identical. So, superiority of testing, or even teaching to the test was not an issue. What the study did show was that accounting for the obvious variables, students did no better in a private school over a public school.

In other words, there are some things that are inherent to getting a good education. A two parent home, and parents with enough income and education to ensure that they are involved in their child's education. Making sure that their kids actually get to school, and attend classes. Having books of all kinds in the home, and encouraging their kids to read. Having a computer, and an internet connection to gain additional educational materials or homework help. Having experienced, qualified teachers in the classroom.

Without these things, it makes little difference if you are in a public or a private school. You are not, on balance, going to do as well in either setting, as students who do have these things.


Except that, if you actually read the study, you'll find that it's not the NYT making those claims, it is the study. And again, unless you can show how their methods are faulty, claiming that the results are untrue flies in the face of the facts.


And I believe that often times, debates become an excuse to bash some institution as liberal, because they happen to refute someone's preconceived notion of how things work.

I am not defending the Times here, I am defending the testing, and the results of the study. The Times merely took their summary of information and published it. So, please, quite bashing the newspaper the report of the study was printed in, and refute the actual study - if you think you can.

Oh, and here's a NEWSFLASH for you, aevans. Headlines are meant to be short, sweet, and engage you to read the reast of the article. If the NYT had incorporated everything into its headline that you seem to want, well then, there would have been no need for a "story", would there?


How about we equalize spending on all of the schools first, before we try and decide which ones are actually "failing".

You claim that the socio-economic factors are "totally arbtrary", in one sentence, but then admit that they made a difference in your education:

Since we currently pay for schools based on property taxes for the most part, perhaps we could get the inner city schools brought up to a higher level by increasing funding in areas that might make a difference.

Collect all of the revenue paid by property taxes, and distribute it equally among all of the schools, for example, based on the number of students. Find a way to increase the number of books in the homes of lower income students, perhaps through a year-end book sale of old books from both the school and public libraries, with a sliding price scale based on income. Find a way to encourage businesses that are replacing computers to donate them to students of inner city schools. Make concerted efforts to include parents in school activities and functions.

From the study, it would appear that these kinds of efforts would pay off a lot more in the long run, than just handing someone a voucher and letting them change schools. If nothing else changes but the location of the school, it isn't likely to do much good.

Actually, not to contest the importance of parental involvement in a Childs life equating to success, I simply did not have much of that, and well I pretty much became a nerd on my own and cared about my own success overall, add to this the reality that bad kids do come from good homes, so what have you, it quickly spins into a complex matter like most things of course.

I really don’t understand the crux of the debate. One public school to the next you will find variation of what people would deem success, I think the same could be said of private schools. To compare the two must take into account what makes them different, or is public and private schools the same thing? A person can make the best of public school just as they could in private schools, both offer up the ability to do this for the most part, but the two of course have differences. SO maybe its one of those genotype phenotype or nature nurture questions overall, and not really a public vs. private school would be my opinion.

To take a look at colleges in this framework, say I had a choice to go to MIT or OSU, of course MIT would offer far greater resources then OSU can, but to take the individual into the equation a person can come out of OSU with a better understanding of whatever major they took vs. someone at MIT that simply did not really ever care about such.

In the end I just find it a complex issue, though I will say that making preference to private school over public could simply kill or degrade public school, I cant really grasp what impact that would hold though overall.

Firstly, I suspect you underestimate the sway your parents had upon you. Unless you were reared by wolves you are likely far better off than most. However, it is (of course) entirely possible you are an exception to the rule.

Secondly, the individuality you're encouraging when one is to make the "best of" a school public or private speaks to the possibility that you're not fully aware of what a bad school is actually like. This is not to discount the power a strong individual holds over their own fate. A determined student could "lower the plow" and push themselves through to success in a poor school.

Lastly, throwing in colleges to this discussion is not useful. A public K-12 school is "free" a private K-12 school is not. 99 & 44/100ths of all Colleges & Universities entail some outlay by a student. Further (and finally) K-12 is compulsory and college is not.

Ok... I'll leave the rest of your post alone, as it seems that you and I won't see eye-to-eye on the notion that private schools DID out perform public schools, of course... except when they applied "scientific" factors (wink-wink-nudge-nudge). I read the report. It's still pretty arbitrary, and negates the basis of capitalism and why private schools even exist.

However, something you stated in the listed sentence is generally untrue. Since the late 90's, most districts assign a per-pupil funding strategy, and often don't specifically rely on property taxes. Many states use things like the lotto to aid in the process, etc.
Here are a few articles to read about this:
http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news...te.pl?20040531u
http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/...t-edits25a.html
http://www.pde.state.pa.us/proptax/site/default.asp
http://www.co.larimer.co.us/compass/fundin...upil_ed_k12.htm

The reality is that many states and counties take total property taxes, gaming revenue, even vehicle licensing revenue and assign a per-pupil funding figure. This money is then distributed at the discretion of the schools. What Louisiana has found, for example, is that money in poorer schools has to be spent on things like security, single mother accomodation (seriously), etc. All of these things cost money, and if there's a fixed figure... fewer computers are purchased.

The fact of the matter is that private schools exist because there is an actual or perceived value to not sending your child to public school. The report even stated that the private schools queried out performed public schools. OF COURSE the kids were more likely to be white, middle-high income, with two-parent families. In America, these are the people that currently can afford private schools. Working class families, poorer people, etc have a harder time coming out of pocket for very expensive private school tuitions. Not rocket science.

The fact of the matter is that most private schools offer scholarships, etc but have a limited amount of money they can "give away". If vouchers were offered, it would give a far larger consumer base for private schools to work with, and in most cases parents would still have to pay something. This would still cause private schools to have the same motivation... to provide a safer, possibly more morally fulfilling, and more enriching educational process. Otherwise... people wouldn't spend the money. It's pure economics 101.

The article in the New York Times enrages me, in that the headlines are basically misleading. The fact of the matter is that the test scores weren't the same. In every category, the private schools outperformed the public schools. WHY? Well... that's a socio-economic question that no article can address without talking about poverty and maslow's hierarchy of needs.

If a family spends all of it's time trying to keep a roof over their heads, they're less likely to be interested or qualified to help with Algebra homework. Two-parent families have more time, resources, etc. It's obvious. No one really argues that notion. No one is saying rich kids are smarter, or that white kids test higher. What I AM saying is that for the NYT to make a headline claim to the effect that the study showed that Public Schools tested comparably is misleading, and basically untrue.

Let's put it this way. If a hamburger joint on the corner couldn't make a burger any better or more pleasing than you could at home, you wouldn't spend your money to go there. Private schools cost money... and in most cases, more than state university educations. Why on earth would someone pay for this??? OH- NEWSFLASH- because their kids are more likely to get a better education in their eyes.

If people live in a public school district with equal funding (i.e. how many states actually work), why would people move into "better districts"? Well, that's pretty easy too. "Better districts" are often flush with middle-upper class students, coming from homes with more support, where "better" teachers want to teach, with fewer social problems, etc, etc, etc.....

How could this be changed? Allow that family in the "less than priveledged" neighborhood to send their kid to the school on the better side of town, and/or put them into private schools.... hmmm.... can anyone say vouchers?

Yes, but that simply just negates the whole reason to apply more funding towards public school, and routes those funds instead to private schools, so to take this on that such should be the norm one could guess that private schools would replace public schools? Would it be tax funded? What stipulations would then apply to the private schools if say public schools go away because of such a maneuver? Its not only this but many private schools happen to be private because they preach various aspects you cannot find in public schools, there are private schools run by well known cult leaders to be more specific.


I can ask what is the difference of education in say Japan or America, or Japan or California? I think it becomes a lot easier to see that the success of education simply does not rest solely on an institution or even an educational method, and again it becomes a complex matter. I am not going against the idea of getting vouchers or some other form of socialism applied for education, what I am talking about is what impact will that hold on the current form of public education if such becomes wide spread. I think it might simply work better to make vouchers for dependent children to attend higher education, being a simple high school diploma in itself is no where as valid in regards to success as even holding an associates in general studies.

More to the point, it seems like the government would either be indirectly or directly routing or commissioning private schools to take over for public schools, so what will happen to public schools as they lose funds or support or more it put in this direction, would not the same issues then come to exist in private schools, or are they simply impervious to such, or will making private schools open to the public at large really end any of the problems its trying to address with vouchers. So really its not me debating if a private school can out perform a public school, its really what will the impact or result of such be if private schools become to norm for general or public education considering everything?

Bottom line Aevens- you have a kid that comes from a middle class nieghborhood with parents that make "X" dollars, and he has a kid living next door in the same 'hood, with the same money- it doesn't matter if one of them goes to private school or one goes to public school- on average, they will get about the same education- no matter how much one parent pays the private school.

So, all things being equal- the parents that sent thier kids to private school got ripped off

Except, of course, some kind of religious indoctrination was thier goal- then, they may very well have got thier money worth- if it sticks, didn't on me, I know that

Now- if you take a poor brown skinned kid from some housing project- and put him in a private school or public school- same thing again- it has more to do with the homelife than the school.

The whole school voucher thing is smoke screen for religious groups- because, just putting your kid in private school, regardless of anything else- unless the parent buckles down with the kid- he is going to get the same educatio regardless of private or public schools.

Private schools, outside of providing a nice indoctrination center- if that is your thing, fine, just don't whine about needing a tax break for it- if that is the case- I should get a tax break for having to pay for the war in Iraq- just let those that are so gung-ho about it support it- I have no choice otherwise- outside of providing a new place to brainwash kids, private schools accomplishes no more than public schools with public funding- Private schools are no more "efficient" due to "free enterprise" than public schools, and, in fact, tuition per student is uusallly quite a bit higher than public schooling- so actually, private schools deliver LESS "bang for the buck"

Except aevans, even you keep telling us in your posts that these kinds of factors make a difference, as I'll point out specifically in just a moment.


Yes, and again, a point you keep making yourself. Why deny it? If you have a majority of students in a school, public or private that are two-parent, affluent and have more time and resources, their aggregate test scores are going to be higher than a student who comes from a single parent low income, lack of resources school, correct?

However, as the study points out, that two parent, affluent, more resources student in a private school didn't do any better than a student in public school that also had a two parent, affluent, more resources home. By the way, that's exactly what you keep saying too, as evidenced below:


Except you do, when it comes to vouchers. What makes you think a student is going to do any better in an upscale suburban school, or a private school, if he still does not have engaged parents, and those additions of time and additional resources like a computer at home, that you claim are so necessary?


But they are not saying that at all. What they are saying, is that comparable students, be they in a public or private school, test comparably.

Of course the private school tests better, as a whole, over the public school. They have the greater percentage of engaged parents, income and resources available to the student in or out of class.

What the study said though, was exactly what CruisingRam said in his post above:




Well, I can't tell you about "most" school districts. And I'm rather sceptical about your statement without a lot more backup.

What I can tell you about, is how it works here in Illinois. Yes, lottery money is used to supplement education, on a sliding scale, from say $500 per pupil in the richest disctricts, to $3500 per pupil in the poorest disctricts. But, in Illinois, there is a specific portion of property taxes that goes to education, per school district, not per county and then allocated evenly across the number of students. This leads to disparities of thousands of dollars in school funds, per pupil, in districts that are perhaps as close as right next to each other.

Here's and example, from a study done by the US GAO, in Cook County, Illinois. Study



The long and short, if Illinois collected all of the property taxes, and distributed them on a per student basis as well, those lower income schools might well be able to attract some better teachers, and provide better resources for their students.

Further, no one is saying that the Midlothian schools in the study above, are necessarily doing a bad job, only that they could probably do a better job with more teachers and better classroom facilities. Vouchers, it seems to me, would only take even more money from that district, making the problems they already have even worse, and building a downward spiral for those schools.

There seems to be a lot of baggage being brought into this threads. It's almost bad as an Israel/Palestine thread! '

Polling data usually uses some type of method to adjust to make it scientific. Yet there is an agenda some have to assert that all things are equal and there is an equal playing field in the world.

Then we have the issue of Christian schools. Some are claiming that school systems are there for indoctrination. Others are appalled that there is a distinction between Lutheran and Conservative Christian. Well, as I have observed the independent school systems, some of them are set up for what I can't see being called anything else but a fundamentalist Christian education.

The Lutheran and Catholic school systems tend to have a more secular focus than these schools.

Also, down here south of the Mason-Dixon line there was a host of independent schools that started popping up after the 1954 Brown v. Board decision and locally at the same time that a district finally desegregated. (Remember in what year Remember the Titans was set?) These schools had a purpose that didn't start with academic excellence.

Others have pointed out that there was a great difference from public school to public shool. This is true.

At my independent school and many other's in the Dead Poet's Society variety are secular independent college prep schools. I firmly believe that theses are superior schools especially in the areas that are not AP and honors. But I also know that when it comes to test scores apples are not apples in comparison without adjustment.

See we get to choose who we accept. While the ability to write a mammoth check plays into the decision to accept a student, we insist that the admission test results reflect and average or above average academic ability. I. E. not below average. Don't forget that we don;t really live in Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average. So private schools, many of which are more academically selective than mine, get to pick what students they admit. no learning disabilities, and no socio-economic debacles. When we take in lower economic students we get to pick in part for parental support. Heck even applying is a type of filter system.

But if I was making a purely academic decision and my child was not brilliant I would pick my school every time over public schools, and I live in the best district in the state. There is a big difference.

You still have yet to back up your blind prejudice that private schools are any more "indoctrinatory" than public schools. It certainly doesn't explain why so many leftist politicians send their kids to private schools. If you can't back it up, then it's clear here who's had a little too much indoctrination of his own.

Having attended 3 of them pretty much makes me an authority on them- that is why Blackstone- plus, going to national private school conferences in the "lower 48" . Ya, I have been in it- I don't need to watch a study or hear protestations otherwise- I lived it, and anyone that tells me otherwise, I know they are full of it.

I have looked in my own little back water little city- for these "liberal" private schools you speaketh- there is one "lutheran" school, two catholic schools. About 30 "Pace" fundamentalist schools. All of them, 15-130 students in each one. The largest private school in this state is Anchorage Baptist Temple- the same size as the high schools in my town- and an indoctrination camp if there ever was one, and a very succesful one at that- but no better in education as any highschool in this town- and, of course, they have weekly preaching on vouchers!

We talk all about the horrible Pakistani schools that turn out Islamic fundamentalists. We have the same system right here in America, and we want to give them a tax break -

Blackstone, you may not want to believe they exist, but I have been to thier national conventions.

I had to wear a red shirt , a tie adorned with the flag, and blue slacks, blue blazer every day to school, go to chapel 5 times a week, plus sunday service. We got daily indoctrination about Ronald Reagan, about him being God's messenger, the one to fulfil prophecy for Isreal and Armegeddon.

We only were allowed to read books with a right wing stance, required reading.

They are the very "right wing" that propelled the current Neo-con's into power, adn I have been around them since 1978.

Bob Jones is thier University to this day. I know, I have been there, nearly got forced into it, I am glad I escaped to the relative peace quiet, and tranquility of the Army.

You can deny it and say "prove it" all you want- i LIVED the reality of the christian indoctrination camps- as did my siblings.

I did not recieve any better education at this school, with the exception of reading and reading comprehension- you see, you gotta read alot of indoctrination stuff

But, as soon as I went to a "real" college (public) I had to catch up with kids that went to "normal" highschool in science- took nearly a year to catch up to college level courses.

I don't want them to be made illegal- I just don't want to see my tax dollars go pay these scumbags.

There are different types of private schools. In Tarrant County, Texas, The Darkridge School (AKA: The Oak Ridge School) and Fort Worth Country Day School are primarily college preparatory institutions.

I check the “mission statements” of four area “Christian” schools and found that there were element of indoctrination in each of those statements.

Not only do some private schools indoctrinate, they seem to advertise doing so.

Burton 7th Day Adventist Academy, Arlington, Texas



http://www.burtonacademy.org/

Bethesda Christian School, Fort Worth, Texas



http://www.bethesdachristianschool.org/bcscd.htm

Calvary Christian Academy, Fort Worth, Texas



http://www.calvaryacademy.com/

Pantego Christian Academy, Arlington, Texas



http://www.pantego.com/

Here is a link to private schools in the United States.

http://www.privateschoolreview.com/



I agree with CruisingRam. Given the overtly religious nature of some private schools, I am more solidly opposed voucher systems than ever.

BTW: Politicians sending children to private schools is irrelevant. The question is not where politician offsprings, or any children, go to school, but who pays for it. Taxpayers should not be responsible for private education. Blackstone, if you really want to know why politicians send their children to private schools, find out which ones do so, then write and ask them. Hopefully you will get an answer you can share with us. We're anxiously waiting.

I have actually talked with my senator about it the private school thing- it is mostly because of security- they are better set up for secret service or body guard, and the children also tend to be with the peer group of thier parents- diplomats and what not- once again, because body guards and whatnot.

I totally understand the celebrity reasons for private school- it has little to do with academics and alot to do with security and privacy- for that, I understand private school- but they still don't need a tax break for it.

Oh is that so? After all, there can't be more than 6 or 7 of them nationwide, right?

Look, as your own cited article points out, there are huge variations in the performance levels of private schools, so while the ones you attended apparently were poor, there are plenty of others that are excellent and provide an orders-of-magnitude better education for some children than their local public schools. Hence exposing your big fat LIE that the only reason parents would send their kids to one of them is to have them "indoctrinated".


Regardless of the reason for doing it, do you think your senator's children are being "indoctrinated"?

As far as the private schools me and BOF showed you- as usual, evidence of a thing is not enough to convince you, or, you sidestep the question completely, run away from it. - BOF just did a routine google search in his own area- I would be willing to bet that religious indoctrination schools outnumber straight acadmia schools by 10-1 or more.

Only the most cursory search on google yields a plethora of statements by the schools themselves that totally make our point- a "slam dunk" if you will-

link
The Association of Christian Teachers and Schools is a nationwide organization that is dedicated to developing Christian leaders for the 21rst Century with the help of Christian teachers and schools.

Funny- nothing about superior education in thier own literature- rather, how they were building better Christians!

Here is a link- look for yourself, rare is it that they are really concerned about REAL education- much more concerned about making chirstians-

http://www.onlychristianschools.com/Result...v7ylHnlS*roJLg..

It is only the real world Blackstone- there are really only two groups of schools, with variations and hybirds between them, that are privately run- academic prep schools, by far the minority, mostly for rich folks to send thier kids to Ivy league schools later- and religious schools. A trip through your own phone book and church guide will provide this for you. One of the most succesful, while somewhat underground, is the PACE Christian school curriculum, because it doesn't needs acredited teachers to get accreditation. they pawn themselves off as a corespondence school, while really having un-qualified "deacons" actually "proctor" the schools.

It is called "accelerated Christian Education" or "ACE" and the P stands for "Private"- there are hundreds of them in many cities. They are under your radar. They don't fit the model of what you would recognize as a school anyway- they are always in a church.

If you don't want to see them, read the phone book to find them, read what BOF says, or look at any evidence to the contrary, or do any of your own research, that is fine- but, if you want to take a position of knowing ANYTHING about the private school system in America, and have any credibility, I suggest you at least investigate for yourself.
http://www.schooloftomorrow.com/homeschool/

20 some years ago, when I was enrolled in this nazi-esque youth league, it was totally church based, and now that Homeschooling has come so en vogue- it is a part of the homeschool system I think even more.

These folks are some of the forefront of the battle lines of voucher system and the myth that somehow their children will perform better later.

Thier motto is not "smarter kids" - but rather "reaching the world for christ one child at a time"

As for the kids in Senators schools- they have a curriculum pretty much the same as public schools according to the folks I know that have attended, when they came back to alaska and went back to the AK public school system, the only difference was that you didn't have guys wearing wires and black suits and ties standing around all the time with dark sunglasses on. So, no, these very, very rare type of private school, that is less than 1/100000th of the schools we are talking about, are probably not indoctrinating at all- considering they have so much diversity of political belief in such a school .

(edited to change inadvertent trigger of the profanity filter)

I'm going by the evidence you provided right at the beginning of this thread - the very article which started it. Unfortunately, it's now dated to the point where I'd now have to pay the NYT to be able to read the whole thing, but when it was free, I clearly remember it saying that there was wide variation in the performance levels of private schools, and that therefore great caution needed to be exercised when citing the results to make any general point about private schools. You've completely ignored those warnings in your jihad against private schools because of your bitterness over the fact that you got sent to some of the worst among them.

Try to follow along here: If there's wide variance in the performance of private schools, and the average performance of private schools is about equivalent to the average performance of public schools within each given demographic, then it would follow that there are some (probably quite a few) private schools that do substantially better than the public schools in the area, thus exposing your LIE that the only reason parents would want to send their children to private schools is to have them "indoctrinated".


Here's a "cursory" Google search on private schools. Most of the sites that come up there do not point to schools hawking religious indoctrination. Even this link to a Mississippi private school association hosts plenty of secular schools. They appear to outnumber the Christian ones, and even a good many of the Christian ones seem to have a reasonably secular focus, without the red shirts and the blue blazers and such. The fact that you can search around the net and selectively find examples of what appear to be indoctrination movements in private education in no way proves that that's the general trend.

Phone books don’t give us a very clear picture. Yes, there are Montessori schools and some specialized schools for disabled or gifted children. There are private schools like Fort Worth Country Day—a haven for those with enough money to afford that luxury. Mixed in with the schools are day care centers. In addition there is a whole page of listings for parochial schools. Despite this, there is are several “Christian” and church owned schools in the Fort Worth phone book. I counted 21. Texas is part of what H. L. Mencken called “the buckle on the Bible belt.” The prominence of such school in this part of the country may be greater than in other areas.

The Catholic schools have been around forever. One of the first and much publicized “Christian” schools, First Baptist Academy of Dallas, was founded by the late famous/ infamous W. A. Criswell in 1972. Nolen Estes left the superintendence of Dallas ISD to become head master.

The mission statement of First Baptist Academy is more obnoxious than those I posted earlier.



http://www.fbacademy.com/aboutfba.htm

Phone books don’t seem to provide mission statements, web pages usually do.

In an earlier post I provided Calvary Christian Academy’s mission statement.



http://www.calvaryacademy.com/

The Academy has a display ad in the Fort Worth phone book.

The ad lists:



Blackstone, I challenge you. Instead of dismissing the research CR and I have done on this issue, why don’t you get busy and find a Christian school whose mission statement does not mention religion as part of it’s purpose? The ball is in your court.

1) Given the super uber ultra peer review this report was vetted through- why do you think private schools do no better than public schools?

I don't. At least, I'm quite skeptical. Here is a question - Given that private schools do no better than public schools, why do the rich and powerful send their children to private schools?