The education system in America

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't know if this has been posted before. It probably has but I thought I’d bring it back up fresh. I figured I’d post this in this area since it's more of a political issue relating to education than an educational issue in itself and because this area gets more hits than the education section.


The issue here is the education system in America.

I know we've all seen those Comedy shows such as Jay Leno where they interview random people on the street and ask them extremely easy questions such as "Who is our vice president?" or "Who was the 1st president?" or "On what day was 9/11?". Questions so obvious and easy that anyone with any brains should be able answer them, but most people don't know them.


I was watching John Strossel's 20/20 episode called "Stupid in America" where he was profiling the educational system in America which is what gave me the idea to post this topic.


Basically I want to discuss all of the problems of the Educational system in America and discuss possible solutions to these problems.


How much do we spend per student in America on education? Isn't it something like $10,000 per student per year on average? Where is all of that money going? It isn't going to the schools themselves or construction since most schools are basically falling apart. It isn't going to teacher wages since their wages are probably below average when compared to other occupations with other wages in America. So where is all of this money going?


Why do the schools that have the most problems get the least money? Schools in urban neighborhoods with high crime rates and low test scores seem to get the LEAST money while schools in the rich white parts of town get the most money. Isn't this just continuing the vicious cycle?
Why can't we use School vouchers for EVERY student in America? If every student were assigned a specific amount of money they could spend on education per year and had a choice to spend it in ANY way they wanted on education, Wouldn't this incite competition between schools and educational facilities and make them improve?


Tell me anything I might of mistaken or missed and discuss this topic and discuss what the actual problem in America with education is and what possible solutions there could be.

[Blert]

I've always wondered about what I've thought of as the main problem with vouchers: private schools that have good scores because they are exclusionary (often more in practice rather than by intent) will simply raise their tuition by approximately the amount of the voucher---the parents in these schools have already demonstrated their willingness to pay for what they consider added value. Parents who can not now afford private tuition will still not be able to afford these schools after the vouchers. This will be a huge windfall for the part of the education system that needs it the least, and those who can't afford the added cost will still be behind.

I think a large part of the problem with education in America is that so many parents have abdicated their responsibility for their children's education (though not always willingly, I might add). When it comes right down to it, if my kids can not read by the time they are in third grade, it's my fault, not the system's.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I've always wondered about what I've thought of as the main problem with vouchers: private schools that have good scores because they are exclusionary (often more in practice rather than by intent) will simply raise their tuition by approximately the amount of the voucher---the parents in these schools have already demonstrated their willingness to pay for what they consider added value. Parents who can not now afford private tuition will still not be able to afford these schools after the vouchers. This will be a huge windfall for the part of the education system that needs it the least, and those who can't afford the added cost will still be behind.

I think a large part of the problem with education in America is that so many parents have abdicated their responsibility for their children's education (though not always willingly, I might add). When it comes right down to it, if my kids can not read by the time they are in third grade, it's my fault, not the system's.


If schools that are private have higher test scores because they only accept the smarter students then I don't see how they would benefit from the vouchers since they wouldn't be able to get the students with the vouchers who aren't as intelligent.

If a school has a high score because it only accepts smart students then accepting dumber students would lower it's score..Right?

Vouchers would help create competition between schools causing them to hire better and work harder to get the students to go to their schools.

Teachers would go to the schools that pay more since the $ being spent would be done much better.

[Fronzel]

I know we've all seen those Comedy shows such as Jay Leno where they interview random people on the street and ask them extremely easy questions such as "Who is our vice president?" or "Who was the 1st president?" or "On what day was 9/11?". Questions so obvious and easy that anyone with any brains should be able answer them, but most people don't know them

A few things to remember: The people they show on TV don't know basic facts. They interview 1000 people and put on the 12 stupids and one smart. Every person had to sign a waiver and it is likely the event was staged.



I think the problems with education come from poor parenting as well as schools not paying the money to get the good teachers. I was always astounded when I dealt with kids that went to private school that seemed worse off then us public school kids. And they had the best of everything. They had 386 computers(back when this was top of the line) and we had three Trash 80's and an Apple. They had a library!

Of course, I did get a lecture from one of those kids about the satanist, Machiavelli. But not all of the schools that taught Noah's ark as science.

[Rob Lister]

Having been through the Public Education drill myself, and having completely raised one of my three boys through it, and the other two currently in it, I can say...it ain't that bad where I am.

I live in a great district and city in terms of our school system.

The most important thing is to make sure you, as a parent, follow up on homework and grades. Get your kids out of the core classes and into the honors classes. You do that by paying attention to what they are studying, bugging them to constantly do better, helping them advance as best you can, and kicking their ass when they start to get lazy.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Having been through the Public Education drill myself, and having completely raised one of my three boys through it, and the other two currently in it, I can say...it ain't that bad where I am.

I live in a great district and city in terms of our school system.

The most important thing is to make sure you, as a parent, follow up on homework and grades. Get your kids out of the core classes and into the honors classes. You do that by paying attention to what they are studying, bugging them to constantly do better, helping them advance as best you can, and kicking their ass when they start to get lazy.


You're forgetting that since you live in a good part of town your school is most likely much better than those who live in poorer parts of town.
I remember when I was in school I had no choice of which school I went to. The school I went to was run down with lazy and ignorant teachers while the school right up the street was brand new and scored the top percentile in the city. I couldn't go to the better school because I lived in the "zone" of the worse school. It was something like a few miles away but I couldn't attend it due to zoning restrictions.


If vouchers were given to all students then they could easily choose whichever schools they want to go to.

[shuize]

I don't know much about the voucher issue, but he's a question I have about it: Supposing there are hypothetical schools A and B. They're both about the same size, say 1,000 students each. A is good, but B is crap. Everyone knows this so as soon as vouchers are given out, 700 of the 1000 students from school B want to change to school A. How do you decide who gets in? Is school B left to fail?

My example is simplistic, I know. But isn't this one of the basic problems with vouchers?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't know much about the voucher issue, but he's a question I have about it: Supposing there are hypothetical schools A and B. They're both about the same size, say 1,000 students each. A is good, but B is crap. Everyone knows this so as soon as vouchers are given out, 700 of the 1000 students from school B want to change to school A. How do you decide who gets in? Is school B left to fail?

My example is simplistic, I know. But isn't this one of the basic problems with vouchers?



That's a good question.


School A obviously has a maximum capacity and can only allow so many students in.

The question has many possible solutions...


School B must either improve or it would be shut down due to lack of students attending.
I believe school B would probably be better improved if it's student body was cut down drastically. The school would cut back on it's size and make money cuts to suit a student body to hold maybe 300 -500 students.
There would in almost all cases be other schools available in the area that the students could attend or new schools could open. The student is given a specific amount of money to spend it on education however he or she chooses this means transportation as well.

[clarsct]

Different facet:
Same situation as above, say they DO close down School B. Suddenly the student/teacher ratio doubles. School A starts to go downhill.

Even if only half of the chidlren at school B go to school A, then you get a similar disproportion. So, in essence, you're dragging down school A in the name of.......education?

Or is it equality at any cost?

Not every student is a genius.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Different facet:
Same situation as above, say they DO close down School B. Suddenly the student/teacher ratio doubles. School A starts to go downhill.

Even if only half of the chidlren at school B go to school A, then you get a similar disproportion. So, in essence, you're dragging down school A in the name of.......education?

Or is it equality at any cost?

Not every student is a genius.


You're making assumptions here.


That school "A" is the only school in the area. This is hardly ever the case.
That more schools won't open up to meet the need of the students. Capitalism says they would. There is a demand and now there must be a supply.

[peptoabysmal]

I think the problem has a number of causes. I am convinced that the US K-12 education system as it exists today has largely become a public day care center more than a place of learning. The issues are more along the lines of classroom size, behavior and lunch programs than pedagogical.

The other thing is that we have become affluent, weak and fat. I think some of the blame has to rest squarely on the individuals who would benefit from the education to work hard and achieve more and spend less time on TV and video games. The generation before mine lived through the great depression and has an entirely different attitude towards taking personal responsibility.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think the problem has a number of causes. I am convinced that the US K-12 education system as it exists today has largely become a public day care center more than a place of learning. The issues are more along the lines of classroom size, behavior and lunch programs than pedagogical.

The other thing is that we have become affluent, weak and fat. I think some of the blame has to rest squarely on the individuals who would benefit from the education to work hard and achieve more and spend less time on TV and video games. The generation before mine lived through the great depression and has an entirely different attitude towards taking personal responsibility.



When I was in 9th grade I remember I asked my teacher about Evolution and she said she couldn't tell me because she could get fired. (Which wasn't true)

This is just one example of the kind of teachers that they are forced to the current situation.

[peptoabysmal]

When I was in 9th grade I remember I asked my teacher about Evolution and she said she couldn't tell me because she could get fired. (Which wasn't true)
That's outrageous. I do remember our history books giving a glorified version of American history and being shocked later on to find out the truth. Now, I'm shocked to see how much the pendulum has swung the other way.

This is just one example of the kind of teachers that they are forced to the current situation.
Yeah, and studies on vouchers that I've seen (e.g.) (http://www.weac.org/Resource/1998-99/april99/vouchtrack.htm)indicate that they don't make much difference in scholastic achievement.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's outrageous. I do remember our history books giving a glorified version of American history and being shocked later on to find out the truth. Now, I'm shocked to see how much the pendulum has swung the other way.


Yeah, and studies on vouchers that I've seen (e.g.) (http://www.weac.org/Resource/1998-99/april99/vouchtrack.htm)indicate that they don't make much difference in scholastic achievement.



We won't see the vouchers really taking effect until ALL students have vouchers and can choose their schools. That way the economics of the matter will take effect and capitalism will do what it does making the schools start to complete. We don't expect to see such a thing occurring when only a fraction of students have vouchers as in that study in Milwaukee

[slingblade]

Here's the problem with focusing on one answer to a multi-faceted question: being able to choose your school won't fix all or even most of the problems with American education, and will probably cause even more problems than it solves.

You have more than two players here, more than just lousy teachers and bored students.

Parents/family,
Teachers,
Coaches,
Administrators,
Local government,
State government,
Federal government,
The community-at-large,
Business and industry,
and students.

This list is obviously not inclusive. I've left many people out. Textbook companies and test makers, for example. They very much matter in any discussion of what's not working well in American education, as do other similarly interested parties. (Do you yet get the sense that I'm talking about all of us? Good, because I am.)

The problem with the problem of education is that people tend to want to blame only a limited number of players, and look at only a limited number of reasons for a limited number of problems. You've looked at a couple of them, Dustin: poor teachers, and the inability to make your own choice of school, as a student. Allow me to point out just a handful of others:

1. Fewer students choose reading materials that stretch their current limits. It can't be said that kids don't read: they see text in some form everywhere they go. But too many kids (and their parents) don't read novel-length books of any genre or era. Even fewer read books considered classics, and upon which much of present and future writing is based. I mean, come on. Star Wars wasn't a new story, any more than LotR or even Harry Potter.

2. Class sizes. I taught a class of 19 students, and a class of 32. The class of 19 did better and was taught better than the class of 32. It's simple. A teacher can give more time to a smaller class. So what is the answer in most schools? Increase class time to 90 minutes instead of 50, and throw in a handful of more students, while you're at it. :rolleyes:

3. School sizes. I lived in a town of some 900 people for over 12 years. I did not, by any means, ever know all of them by sight, much less by name, even though the population remained relatively stable. How do we expect students and educators to know anything about each other in schools with student bodies of 2000+ and a dramatic population shift every year, for four years?

4. Inadequate funds: Education is one of the few problems that would actually benefit from having more money thrown at it. We should try it sometime. Seriously. We should.

5. NCLB: This evil piece of vacuous, whitewashed cow manure should have been laughed out of existence from the moment it was proposed.

6. Absent parents: I attended two sets of parent-teacher conferences for over 130 students. 20 to 30 parents, mostly the same ones, showed up for each one. Both conferences lasted two nights. Four chances to come to your kid's school, meet her teachers, get involved, and yet less than a quarter of the parents took even one of them. That's pretty bad, and this was a good school, in a good neighborhood. Lots of doctors and engineers, I was told.

That's just a very short list of the problems schools face. Vouchers aren't going to make your friends pick up a stinking book once in a while, or make a disinterested parent suddenly get involved, or even add any more money to pot. And until you do something that addresses those problems and others, vouchers alone aren't going to fix much, for long.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Inadequate funds? How much do we spend on student on Average in America? Something like $10,000? I don't see how that is "inadequate".

[shuize]

I understand the sentiment behind school vouchers. I just think the difficulty lies in making them work in practice. But as I noted above, I don't know enough about the issue.

What I do know, however, is that one of my biggest revelations as to the state of education in some parts of the United States came from my experience working in a court-related job. As part of my duties, I had the opportunity to review statements from witnesses to criminal/delinquent acts committed on school premises. The statements written by the teachers at many of these these inner-city schools were pathetic. Beyond not being able to describe events in a logical and orderly manner, they often could not even manage a coherent sentence -- in documents they knew were going to be submitted to court! Spelling and grammar? My dog has a better command of the English language.

That's when I knew students stuck in those schools were truly f*cked.

ETA: And I agree it was not "inadequate funds." With federal money thrown in, most of the teachers at these urban public schools were making better money than their private school counterparts.

[hgc]

How much do we spend per student in America on education? Isn't it something like $10,000 per student per year on average? Where is all of that money going? It isn't going to the schools themselves or construction since most schools are basically falling apart. It isn't going to teacher wages since their wages are probably below average when compared to other occupations with other wages in America. So where is all of this money going?
I also would like to know where that money is going. Can you first cite where the $10K figure comes from? Also, I wonder about your most schools are bascally falling apart claim. I know it's a famous problem in certain large cities, but please cite a source showing that this is a problem for most schools. Oh, and where are the sources showing average teacher salaries and as compared to the rest of the working population?

Thank you.

[drkitten]

The question has many possible solutions...


School B must either improve or it would be shut down due to lack of students attending.



That's not a solution, any more than the statement that Patient P must either improve or he will die is a diagnosis.



I believe school B would probably be better improved if it's student body was cut down drastically. The school would cut back on it's size and make money cuts to suit a student body to hold maybe 300 -500 students.


Yeah, this is the usual line of reasoning by the proponents of vouchers. Unfortunately, it's never been made clear to me how eliminating two-thirds of the students, teachers, and facilities are supposed to improve education.

The basic problem is that education costs what it costs. Trying to run a school for less than the cost of a genuine education means that few if any genuine educations are delivered. Try to buy a steak in a McDonald's and you'll have an idea of what I'm talking about.

And unfortunately, it costs more to provide education in the areas where education is the most needed, precisely because the home-life conditions are sufficiently worse that you don't get cheap or free community support.

[drkitten]

Inadequate funds? How much do we spend on student on Average in America? Something like $10,000? I don't see how that is "inadequate".

Actually, the average figure nationwide is more like $7,000, I believe. The problem is that the places where the needs are greatest (typically inner-cities) are also the areas where the costs are the highest.

[Almo]

Inadequate funds? How much do we spend on student on Average in America? Something like $10,000? I don't see how that is "inadequate".

It's inadequate if it's not enough to ensure they are educated. I use italics because I'm not talkin about knowing enough to drive a car and flip burgers.

[bigred]

I think a large part of the problem with education in America is that so many parents have abdicated their responsibility for their children's education (though not always willingly, I might add). When it comes right down to it, if my kids can not read by the time they are in third grade, it's my fault, not the system's.
:jaw-dropp
Wow somebody gets it.

That plus the stripping of authority from teachers in general (and subsequent bad attitudes which they cannot properly handle as their hands are tied) is the main problem IMO.

Ironic that parents increasingly can't be bothered....yet don't want to give teachers the authority to do so.

[bigred]

I also would like to know where that money is going. Can you first cite where the $10K figure comes from? Also, I wonder about your most schools are bascally falling apart claim. I know it's a famous problem in certain large cities, but please cite a source showing that this is a problem for most schools. Oh, and where are the sources showing average teacher salaries and as compared to the rest of the working population?

Thank you.
Teacher salaries are notoriously low given comparable qualifications, years of experience, etc etc to the vast majority of other professions. But this isn't because of some terrible state of educational finances; it's simply supply and demand, ie teaching remains one of the most popular/desired/fulfilling/whatever professions around, ie there simply isn't a need to pay people a lot because there are always plenty of people willing to be teachers and work for less.

[hgc]

Teacher salaries are notoriously low given comparable qualifications, years of experience, etc etc to the vast majority of other professions. But this isn't because of some terrible state of educational finances; it's simply supply and demand, ie teaching remains one of the most popular/desired/fulfilling/whatever professions around, ie there simply isn't a need to pay people a lot because there are always plenty of people willing to be teachers and work for less.Yes, I am familiar with the notion of low teacher salaries, and I certainly believe it in regards to NYC schools, as I know some teachers here. But I don't know in general if teachers in this country don't actually make a decent living. Since many teachers have masters degrees, they may make on average less than similarly educated people, but then the same can be said of librarians, social workers and other professionals with advanced degrees. Since the underpaid teacher was part of the Dustin's argument, I was looking for relevant facts from the claimant.

[Rob Lister]

Inadequate funds? How much do we spend on student on Average in America? Something like $10,000? I don't see how that is "inadequate".

$10K is about the average.

VB spends about 7K per student with the average student:teacher ratio of 16:1. The average teacher salary is about 45K. doing the math, the unloaded cost of each teacher is only a little less than half of the funded payback. When loaded (benefits, overhead, building, buses, heat, insurance, yadda), it's no wonder they do bake sales!

10K is crap unless you're willing to increase the S/T ratio to something like 30:1 -- which I think is fine so long as the 30 pay attention and obey the 1. That's where private school rules: they can easily say, "bye-bye...thanks for all the fish!"

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I also would like to know where that money is going. Can you first cite where the $10K figure comes from? Also, I wonder about your most schools are bascally falling apart claim. I know it's a famous problem in certain large cities, but please cite a source showing that this is a problem for most schools. Oh, and where are the sources showing average teacher salaries and as compared to the rest of the working population?

Thank you.

I was a bit off....

U.S. public school districts spent an average of $8,287 per student in 2004, up from the previous year’s total of $8,019. In all, public elementary and secondary education received $462.7 billion from federal, state and local sources in 2004, up 5.1 percent from 2003.


http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/economic_surveys/006685.html



The average teacher salary hit almost $44,400 last year, according to a survey by the American Federation of Teachers.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/07/04/teacher.salaries.ap/

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's not a solution, any more than the statement that Patient P must either improve or he will die is a diagnosis.


Not hardly. No one cares if a school closes down if it is inadequate. It's not a living thing. As long as there is a place for the students to go which is an improvement then it's all worth it.


Yeah, this is the usual line of reasoning by the proponents of vouchers. Unfortunately, it's never been made clear to me how eliminating two-thirds of the students, teachers, and facilities are supposed to improve education.

Haven't you seen the testimonies from the teachers in this thread saying reduced class size would benefit?

The basic problem is that education costs what it costs. Trying to run a school for less than the cost of a genuine education means that few if any genuine educations are delivered. Try to buy a steak in a McDonald's and you'll have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Nonsense. "Education costs what it costs"? Exactly what does it cost? What we're spending on it? I find that hard to believe. I believe that there is a lot of waste occuring in our public school system.

And unfortunately, it costs more to provide education in the areas where education is the most needed, precisely because the home-life conditions are sufficiently worse that you don't get cheap or free community support.

And?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's inadequate if it's not enough to ensure they are educated. I use italics because I'm not talkin about knowing enough to drive a car and flip burgers.


A capitalist sort of competition would ensure that schools work their hardest to compete against other schools for students. Meaning that we don't have this sort of laziness of schools where they are competing with no one and get money regardless of if they succeed
or fail.

[slingblade]

A capitalist sort of competition would ensure that schools work their hardest to compete against other schools for students. Meaning that we don't have this sort of laziness of schools where they are competing with no one and get money regardless of if they succeed
or fail.

Competition of the sort you seem to be proposing wouldn't ensure a better education for the students.

It would mostly ensure that schools would be competing for funds (not students--just the money each student represents. Talk about making kids faceless....) in even worse ways than they already compete for funds.

Try to picture all the ways this might go down, given the oodles of common sense shown in any endeavor of such magnitude in the past. You don't seriously think that competition's going to be based on better test scores and shiny new books, do you?

Don't even get me started on "student choice." Most student won't be deciding where they go to school; their parent(s) will. And some parents won't give a rat's fat behind, just like now. Other parents will choose schools for the wrong reasons (the great sports teams, for instance), while still other parents will resent having to take the time to make the choice to start with.

As I said before, there are many things wrong with (and right with) our schools. One answer alone won't cover a multitude of sins.

Start with parents. How will vouchers ensure that even most parents will get more involved (never mind all of them)?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Competition of the sort you seem to be proposing wouldn't ensure a better education for the students.

It would mostly ensure that schools would be competing for funds (not students--just the money each student represents. Talk about making kids faceless....) in even worse ways than they already compete for funds.

So what's the problem exactly?

Try to picture all the ways this might go down, given the oodles of common sense shown in any endeavor of such magnitude in the past. You don't seriously think that competition's going to be based on better test scores and shiny new books, do you?

What do you mean "going to be based on"? I think most parents will choose the schools based on standardized test scores.

If the parents don't want to choose the the State could choose for them.

But many parents would want to choose.

Don't even get me started on "student choice." Most student won't be deciding where they go to school; their parent(s) will. And some parents won't give a rat's fat behind, just like now. Other parents will choose schools for the wrong reasons (the great sports teams, for instance), while still other parents will resent having to take the time to make the choice to start with.

As I said before, there are many things wrong with (and right with) our schools. One answer alone won't cover a multitude of sins.

Start with parents. How will vouchers ensure that even most parents will get more involved (never mind all of them)?


For the parents who don't want to choose then they could easily let the state do it for them picking the nearest random public school for instance.

[fuelair]

If schools that are private have higher test scores because they only accept the smarter students then I don't see how they would benefit from the vouchers since they wouldn't be able to get the students with the vouchers who aren't as intelligent.

If a school has a high score because it only accepts smart students then accepting dumber students would lower it's score..Right?

Vouchers would help create competition between schools causing them to hire better and work harder to get the students to go to their schools.

Teachers would go to the schools that pay more since the $ being spent would be done much better.

With no offense, what you apparently do not know about how the wonderful world of education works is colossal. I suggest reading or interviewing professionals who have a lot of time on their hands to explain the problems with this. I do not get paid enough to go beyond this suggestion but if you are actually interested, you need to.

[slingblade]

So what's the problem exactly?

Competition of the sort you seem to be proposing wouldn't ensure a better education for the students.



What do you mean "going to be based on"?

What will school competition be based on? What are the criteria you imagine for such competition? Pretty basic English, do try to keep up.

I think most parents will choose the schools based on standardized test scores.

Why do you think this? On what do you base this statement?

What can you tell me about standardized testing? What exactly does such testing measure, how does it measure it, and how is instruction modified based on results?

Who creates the tests, who determines what goes in and what does not, and how is the curriculum set up for such testing?

if you can answer half of these questions, you should have an idea of the fundamental flaws inherent in test-based instruction. If you can't answer them, you need to do more research on the topic until you can.

If the parents don't want to choose the the State could choose for them.

This then defeats utterly whatever goal it was you had in mind by issuing vouchers so that students and parents could have a choice in education.

But many parents would want to choose.

Is this a claim or an opinion, and on what evidence is it based?

For the parents who don't want to choose then they could easily let the state do it for them picking the nearest random public school for instance.

Which guarantees a student gets a high-quality education, as was your stated goal, how exactly?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What will school competition be based on? What are the criteria you imagine for such competition? Pretty basic English, do try to keep up.?

What do you mean Criteria?


Why do you think this? On what do you base this statement?

What can you tell me about standardized testing? What exactly does such testing measure, how does it measure it, and how is instruction modified based on results?

Who creates the tests, who determines what goes in and what does not, and how is the curriculum set up for such testing?

if you can answer half of these questions, you should have an idea of the fundamental flaws inherent in test-based instruction. If you can't answer them, you need to do more research on the topic until you can.


If your argument is with Standardized tests then that's what your argument is with. Not school vouchers. Standardized tests are done every year in our educational system. I believe they can be used to determine school rankings.



This then defeats utterly whatever goal it was you had in mind by issuing vouchers so that students and parents could have a choice in education.

No. Many parents want to choose. But for those that don't then the state could. Doesn't defeat anything.


Is this a claim or an opinion, and on what evidence is it based?

Where's the evidence for your claim that many parents wouldn't care to choose?


Which guarantees a student gets a high-quality education, as was your stated goal, how exactly?


Read what i'm saying. No schools that are rated low would even exist in this system so ALL students would get a higher education than they have currently.

[slingblade]

What do you mean Criteria?

Look it up. It isn't a trick question.

What will school competition be based on? What are the criteria you imagine for such competition?

Again, this is still pretty basic English. Use a dictionary if certain words are beyond your vocabulary.


If your argument is with Standardized tests then that's what your argument is with. Not school vouchers.

Isn't standardized testing part of your school voucher plan? Have you lost all the threads of your argument already?

Standardized tests are done every year in our educational system. I believe they can be used to determine school rankings.

Why do you believe this? What do you know about standardized testing which you use to support this belief?


No. Many parents want to choose. But for those that don't then the state could. Doesn't defeat anything.

If the point of vouchers is to give parents and students more choice, then having the state make the choice defeats that purpose.


Where's the evidence for your claim that many parents wouldn't care to choose?

You first. You made the initial claim, so yours is the burden of proof.

Many parents want to choose.

Is that fact or opinion? If fact, where is your evidence? If opinion, what information have you used to inform your opinion?


Read what i'm saying. No schools that are rated low would even exist in this system so ALL students would get a higher education than they have currently.

Dont get pertinent, boy. You read what I'm saying.

You are making claims out of thin air, with nothing to back them up.
You are expressing opinons, not facts. When pressed for facts, you prevaricate.

I get what your opinion is: now, back it up with information, with proof.

If you can't, you're just talking out of your hat, and the discussion is over.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Look it up. It isn't a trick question.

What will school competition be based on? What are the criteria you imagine for such competition?

Again, this is still pretty basic English. Use a dictionary if certain words are beyond your vocabulary.




Isn't standardized testing part of your school voucher plan? Have you lost all the threads of your argument already?



Why do you believe this? What do you know about standardized testing which you use to support this belief?




If the point of vouchers is to give parents and students more choice, then having the state make the choice defeats that purpose.




You first. You made the initial claim, so yours is the burden of proof.



Is that fact or opinion? If fact, where is your evidence? If opinion, what information have you used to inform your opinion?




Dont get pertinent, boy. You read what I'm saying.

You are making claims out of thin air, with nothing to back them up.
You are expressing opinons, not facts. When pressed for facts, you prevaricate.

I get what your opinion is: now, back it up with information, with proof.

If you can't, you're just talking out of your hat, and the discussion is over.


Standardized testing is done every year in the united states and it's what most of our educational system is based on. Sure there should be many improvements in standardized testing but the fact of the matter is that if we had a voucher system we could use the testing we currently have and it would still work as it works now. Students would be able to pick their own schools based on the ranking those schools get from standardized testing.

Where is the evidence most parents would choose the school for their children? I doesn't matter if most do or don't. We could fix that by creating closer ties between parents and teachers and for those parents who don't want to choose then the govt does. At least it gives those parents who DO want to choose a chance to do so.

[drkitten]

Haven't you seen the testimonies from the teachers in this thread saying reduced class size would benefit?

I have. The problem is that reduced class sizes cost more money, not less. You're not going to be able to reduce class sizes as a cost-saving measure.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I have. The problem is that reduced class sizes cost more money, not less. You're not going to be able to reduce class sizes as a cost-saving measure.


Why?

[ReFLeX]

Why?

Uhhhh... because you will need more teachers?

[drkitten]

Uhhhh... because you will need more teachers?

Not in Dustin-land, apparently.

[slingblade]

I have. The problem is that reduced class sizes cost more money, not less. You're not going to be able to reduce class sizes as a cost-saving measure.

Exactly, which is why I say edu is an area that would benefit from having more funds, more money, PROVIDED the money was used properly (which determination I could make only in a general sense). Spending it on more and highly qualified teachers is one thing by which we could benefit greatly.

[slingblade]

Standardized testing is done every year in the united states and it's what most of our educational system is based on.

Yes, and you are critical of the current education system. Would you care to guess why what we have now doesn't work as well as it could? (Hint: it might be overuse and misapplication of standardized testing.)

At least it gives those parents who DO want to choose a chance to do so.

How do you know that? What is your evidence, your rationale?

Or are you still talking out of your hat ( and do you now need a book of idiom to understand what it means to talk out of one's hat)?

[Orangutan]

....extremely easy questions such as "Who is our vice president?" or "Who was the 1st president?" or "On what day was 9/11?"....

I think you are being a little elitist. Education should be more than just learning facts. It should be about understanding these facts in context an having the mental tools to apply reason and give insight. Who says knowing “who the vice president is” is important to these people, Why is an interest in who runs your country an indication of your smartness? I'm sure there are ton's of PHDs that don't know the answer to some of those questions.

BTW I had to look up 9/11/01 to find out what day it was, I knew it was a weekday as I remember where I was. I remember it was morning because they wanted heavy commuter jets full of fuel for a trans-continental trip. There's a whole list of relevant facts that I know that give me insight to the why it happened. The fact it was a Tuesday is pretty low down on that list. Does that make me dumb?

I guess I'm a bit sore as I was and still am a terrible speller, It just wasn't that important to me and now I have spell checkers so In your face "you can't take English lit. until your spelling improved" teacher! I probably read more than most of the students in your class anyway.

reaches for meds....
:)

[Blert]

If schools that are private have higher test scores because they only accept the smarter students then I don't see how they would benefit from the vouchers since they wouldn't be able to get the students with the vouchers who aren't as intelligent.


If a school has a high score because it only accepts smart students then accepting dumber students would lower it's score..Right?


Whoa, whoa, whoa! Who said anything about smarter students? This, frankly, is a popular misconception---most private schools in this country do not have high entrance standards: most are happy to accept anyone who can pay (well, that and behave).

Vouchers would help create competition between schools causing them to hire better and work harder to get the students to go to their schools.

Teachers would go to the schools that pay more since the $ being spent would be done much better.

This is a pretty bold claim---I'm not sure I really know what you mean when you say "create comptetition between schools". How are you going to measure the worth of the product? How is an uninformed consumer going to choose between these new schools?

A capitalist sort of competition would ensure that schools work their hardest to compete against other schools for students. Meaning that we don't have this sort of laziness of schools where they are competing with no one and get money regardless of if they succeed or fail.

Capitalism may work well for businesses, but can you really say that McDonald's has the best food? The most successful business does not necessarily imply the best product. But this isn't just a meal where you can make the choice in the first five minutes whether or not to come back; you may find that the school that you've chosen has generated good test scores (and it's not that hard to get test scores up if you don't care whether or not the students are actually learning anything) but a poor education only after a decade's investment when it comes time to build on that initial education.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, and you are critical of the current education system. Would you care to guess why what we have now doesn't work as well as it could? (Hint: it might be overuse and misapplication of standardized testing.)



How do you know that? What is your evidence, your rationale?

Or are you still talking out of your hat ( and do you now need a book of idiom to understand what it means to talk out of one's hat)?


What are you even talking about? You arne't making sense.


How do I know that if given the chance to pick schools parents will have the chance to pick schools???

WHAT??

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think you are being a little elitist. Education should be more than just learning facts. It should be about understanding these facts in context an having the mental tools to apply reason and give insight. Who says knowing “who the vice president is” is important to these people, Why is an interest in who runs your country an indication of your smartness? I'm sure there are ton's of PHDs that don't know the answer to some of those questions.

BTW I had to look up 9/11/01 to find out what day it was, I knew it was a weekday as I remember where I was. I remember it was morning because they wanted heavy commuter jets full of fuel for a trans-continental trip. There's a whole list of relevant facts that I know that give me insight to the why it happened. The fact it was a Tuesday is pretty low down on that list. Does that make me dumb?

I guess I'm a bit sore as I was and still am a terrible speller, It just wasn't that important to me and now I have spell checkers so In your face "you can't take English lit. until your spelling improved" teacher! I probably read more than most of the students in your class anyway.

reaches for meds....
:)


I meant to phrase the question as "On what day of the month was 9/11?" not what day of the week.

This question was asked to a few people and their guesses ranged from the 5th to the 30th to the 8th etc.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This is a pretty bold claim---I'm not sure I really know what you mean when you say "create comptetition between schools". How are you going to measure the worth of the product? How is an uninformed consumer going to choose between these new schools?

Standardized tests made public.

Capitalism may work well for businesses, but can you really say that McDonald's has the best food? The most successful business does not necessarily imply the best product. But this isn't just a meal where you can make the choice in the first five minutes whether or not to come back; you may find that the school that you've chosen has generated good test scores (and it's not that hard to get test scores up if you don't care whether or not the students are actually learning anything) but a poor education only after a decade's investment when it comes time to build on that initial education.

McDonalds is on top because it has a customer base in the hundreds of millions. If people didn't like McDonalds they'd go out of business.

It's true that schools could get test scores up without the students learning much of anything but Parents could let their students spend some time in the schools to see how they're doing and if they don't like it then they move to another school. That's not a problem.

[slingblade]

Dustin, give up, please. You have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't answered simple questions because you claim you don't understand all the words. And now you claim you can't comprehend the following: "How do you know that if given the chance to pick schools, parents will actually make the effort?"

So far, all you have done is make baseless claims. You're just expressing an extremely uninformed opinion. Why? What do you want? Because you can't have a meaningful discussion about it; you lack the necessary background information.

Impasse.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin, give up, please. You have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't answered simple questions because you claim you don't understand all the words. And now you claim you can't comprehend the following: "How do you know that if given the chance to pick schools, parents will actually make the effort?"

So far, all you have done is make baseless claims. You're just expressing an extremely uninformed opinion. Why? What do you want? Because you can't have a meaningful discussion about it; you lack the necessary background information.

Impasse.


I've already answered that question.

"How do you know that if given the chance to pick schools, parents will actually make the effort?"

I never said all will. I said that many will. And those that are willing to should be given the chance to further their Childs education.

[slingblade]

I never said all will. I said that many will. And those that are willing to should be given the chance to further their Childs education.

Yeah, so what? You make a general statement of opinion: "Parents should be given the chance to further their Childs [sic] education."

Your making that statement was the easy part. Let's suppose I agree in principle with your statement. Now what?

Well, now you bring up vouchers, and schools competing for those vouchers.
I ask "So how would this competition work?" and you say "Huh? What? You use big words! What do they mean?" and I get no answer.

Somewhere else you do attempt to answer by saying schools would use standardized testing. You don't really specify how they would use it. You are asked if you understand how standardized testing works and you say "Schools currently use it all the time."

This does not answer the question, though, does it?

In fact, none of this really matters. All you wanted was to start a thread about vouchers and have people agree with you. You don't have any arguments, and in fact are probably just parroting some stuff you heard at a Young Republicans meeting.

So, here's my equivalent response to your claim:

No, vouchers are bad. They just are. If they were any good, we'd have them by now. 'Cause I said so. And because it's obvious.

I win.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well, now you bring up vouchers, and schools competing for those vouchers.
I ask "So how would this competition work?" and you say "Huh? What? You use big words! What do they mean?" and I get no answer.

No. You asked how the competition would work and I explained that it would work where schools that perform better would get more students because parents would rather send their children to a better performing school than one that performs terribly. Those that perform terribly will get no customers and will be forced to shut down. More schools will open up meeting the need of the customer base.

Somewhere else you do attempt to answer by saying schools would use standardized testing. You don't really specify how they would use it. You are asked if you understand how standardized testing works and you say "Schools currently use it all the time."

This does not answer the question, though, does it?

I don't know exactly how all standardized testing works.


How about you explain it?

In fact, none of this really matters. All you wanted was to start a thread about vouchers and have people agree with you. You don't have any arguments, and in fact are probably just parroting some stuff you heard at a Young Republicans meeting.

I'm a political independent.


So, here's my equivalent response to your claim:

No, vouchers are bad. They just are. If they were any good, we'd have them by now. 'Cause I said so. And because it's obvious.

I win.

:rolleyes:

[Ceritus]

Holy crap, it is like watching Israel invade Lebannon......

So catastrophic the damage......

[Blert]

Standardized tests made public.

If you want to continue claiming that standardized test scores indicate how much a student has learned, I'm not really sure what to else to say. High stakes tests have a way of taking over the curriculum, and not in a good way. Many schools here in Texas spend 15-20 minutes of each class period doing TAKS practice problems and it works---on the average, students do better on the exam. But they get to college knowing little more than how to take multiple-choice exams.

McDonalds is on top because it has a customer base in the hundreds of millions. If people didn't like McDonalds they'd go out of business.

I think you're missing the point: businesses make money by producing a popular product---not necessarily a quality product. McDonalds produces food with very little nutritional content that frankly is not very good (at doing what food is supposed to do); the corporate leaders of McDonalds care very little for making quality food because what they produce now is very popular and makes them lots of money.

Such a scenario is fine for business, but it sucks for education. Right now, most folks are in education because they want to do a good job and believe in what they are doing, not because they want to make a lot of money. The priorities are utterly different, and rightly so.


It's true that schools could get test scores up without the students learning much of anything but Parents could let their students spend some time in the schools to see how they're doing and if they don't like it then they move to another school. That's not a problem.

And how is a parent going to know there is a problem as long as the test scores remain high?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If you want to continue claiming that standardized test scores indicate how much a student has learned, I'm not really sure what to else to say. High stakes tests have a way of taking over the curriculum, and not in a good way. Many schools here in Texas spend 15-20 minutes of each class period doing TAKS practice problems and it works---on the average, students do better on the exam. But they get to college knowing little more than how to take multiple-choice exams.

Then the tests could be set up in a way where it isn't possible to prepare for them other than general education.


I think you're missing the point: businesses make money by producing a popular product---not necessarily a quality product. McDonalds produces food with very little nutritional content that frankly is not very good (at doing what food is supposed to do); the corporate leaders of McDonalds care very little for making quality food because what they produce now is very popular and makes them lots of money.

I'm not missing the point. I never said McDonalds was healthy or good to eat. I simply said they are successful because people like their product.


Such a scenario is fine for business, but it sucks for education. Right now, most folks are in education because they want to do a good job and believe in what they are doing, not because they want to make a lot of money. The priorities are utterly different, and rightly so.

It doesn't 'suck' for education. They use school vouchers in many european countries where their students blow American students away when it comes to basic knowledge.

And how is a parent going to know there is a problem as long as the test scores remain high?


How about talking to the child?

[drkitten]

Then the tests could be set up in a way where it isn't possible to prepare for them other than general education.

Perhaps. But no one has ever been able to figure out how to do that yet.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Perhaps. But no one has ever been able to figure out how to do that yet.


Sure.


Stop giving out practice tests.

Change the test every year.

[slingblade]

Then the tests could be set up in a way where it isn't possible to prepare for them other than general education.

That won't work.


I'm not missing the point. I never said McDonalds was healthy or good to eat. I simply said they are successful because people like their product.

So your idea to improve education is to set up a system that encourages "junk food" schools? The competition for your voucher is to be won by the flashiest, yet most pedagogically empty educator? Just as the competition for one's food dollar is often won by the flashiest, but most nutritionally empty fast-food place?

Note to world: Please do not put Dustin in charge of anything important.
Thank you.


It doesn't 'suck' for education. They use school vouchers in many european countries where their students blow American students away when it comes to basic knowledge.

I'd ask you for evidence on these points, but it would be a waste of my time, wouldn't it?


How about talking to the child?

Smug lasts only until the birth of your own first child. I wish you luck with that; you're going to need it.

[drkitten]

Stop giving out practice tests.

Change the test every year.

Been tried. Doesn't work.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That won't work.


Says you?


So your idea to improve education is to set up a system that encourages "junk food" schools? The competition for your voucher is to be won by the flashiest, yet most pedagogically empty educator? Just as the competition for one's food dollar is often won by the flashiest, but most nutritionally empty fast-food place?

This is a valid argument. That Americans aren't actually even smart enough to choose which schools are better than others.

The education system can't be fixed because the education system is broken basically?


Note to world: Please do not put Dustin in charge of anything important.
Thank you.


Note to self: Stop wasting time respond to Slingblade's abusive posts.


I'd ask you for evidence on these points, but it would be a waste of my time, wouldn't it?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338


Smug lasts only until the birth of your own first child. I wish you luck with that; you're going to need it.


I talk/ed openly with my parents. If you're a good parent then your children will be open with you.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Been tried. Doesn't work.



Evidence?

[drkitten]

Evidence?

Was that a request that I do your research for you?

In the immortal words of User Friendly -- Can you count on your fingers? In binary? Then I send you a 'four.'

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Was that a request that I do your research for you?

In the immortal words of User Friendly -- Can you count on your fingers? In binary? Then I send you a 'four.'




In that case...Everything I've been claiming is true and Vouchers would absolutely work.


Want evidence?


Do your own research!

[andyandy]

ok, a brit has a question :)

when i was working in japan, we had some US-exchange students come on a yearly basis (age 16ish) - and they would study for the SAT (or PSAT?) which apparently was important for getting into college/uni....

looking at the past papers the tests seemed very grammar/vocab centric - ie. more about testing knowledge rather than intelligence....

anyway, it struck me that such a test would put at a disadvantage someone for who English had not been their first language....

which may be fair enough if you wanted to enter uni to do an English-language based course, but say i wanted to study math(s) or physics at uni -would i still need to score highly on a PSAT test?

if someone could explain this, cheers :)

[slingblade]

Says you?

Yep, says me.

This is a valid argument.

Yes, it is. Glad you could see that.

That Americans aren't actually even smart enough to choose which schools are better than others.

Is someone arguing that?

The education system can't be fixed because the education system is broken basically?

The idea you have (what little we know about it) won't fix education all by itself.


Note to self: Stop wasting time respond to Slingblade's abusive posts.

You can only start that after you have actually responded to any of my posts.


http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

That's great, and yes I did read it. But it's not evidence. It's John Stossel being slightly alarmist and reporting, as he usually does, by cherry-picking.

It does, however, confirm my guess that you are parroting someone else's idea without actually understanding what lies behind the concept yourself.

From your link:

Competition inspires people to do what we didn't think we could do. If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, science schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what else. If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom.

As a rule of thumb, beware of ideas which end before outlining any potential problems. IOW, "pie-in-the-sky" philosophies.

Stossel fails in this piece to examine any problems associated with school choice/competition. This failure has evidently led you to think that there will be no problems. It is generally a bad idea and a poor display of critical thinking to accept an idea without looking at counter-arguments first.


I talk/ed openly with my parents. If you're a good parent then your children will be open with you.

As sweet as that vague sentiment is, it really has nothing to do with the argument.

[drkitten]

In that case...Everything I've been claiming is true and Vouchers would absolutely work.

This is demonstrably wrong -- on the basis of the evidence already posted on this thread.


Want evidence?


Do your own research!

I have. I've posted some of it. For example, your claims about potential cost-savings are economically ludicrouse.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This is demonstrably wrong -- on the basis of the evidence already posted on this thread.



I have. I've posted some of it. For example, your claims about potential cost-savings are economically ludicrouse.


Really? Then in that case...


Was that a request that I do your research for you?

In the immortal words of User Friendly -- Can you count on your fingers? In binary? Then I send you a 'four.'


I've already done my research and refuted all of your arguments and shown them to be ludicrouse.

[drkitten]

when i was working in japan, we had some US-exchange students come on a yearly basis (age 16ish) - and they would study for the SAT (or PSAT?) which apparently was important for getting into college/uni....

Okay, US aptitude testing in a nutshell.

The SAT -- technically the Scholastic Aptitude Test -- is more or less the gold-standard against which all other entrance tests are measured. Most colleges require either SAT scores or equivalent (such as the ACT scores) as a part of the application, and high test scores are a major factor in acceptance.

Other, similar, tests, include the GRE (for graduate school admissions), the LSAT (for law schools), the GMAT (for graduate business schools), the MCAT (for medical schools), and the PSAT -- the Pre-SAT -- which is taken as a warmup for the SAT but is also used for some scholarship decisions.

In general, all of these are actually several tests. The SAT, for example, has a "verbal" component, which is basically vocabulary and reading comprehension -- for example, "promontory is to bluff as dormer is to a) mountain, b) house, c) truck, or d) motel." It also has a "math" component which is typically arithmetic, algebra, and some light geometry. ("Two sides of a right triangle are 5 and 12, respectively. The third is a) 13 b) 14 c) 15 d) 16." Or the infamous "A train leaves Chicago heading due east at 50 mph. How many passengers drown?") Recently, the SAT added a writing component as well, where students have to write a brief essay.

Scores are reported for each component. This makes it easier to determine the "aptitude" of the individual student -- a student applying to an engineering school will typically have his/her math subscore taken much more seriously than the verbal one, and of course the reverse is true for a literature applicant.

For students whose native language is not English -- yes, they're at a disadvantage, but not as much as you might think. First -- the admissions officers are not stupid; a student applying from Ruthenia will be treated differently from one applying from Chicago. Many student are also required -- or requested -- to take yet another standardized test, the TESOL (Test of English as a Second or Other Language), which measures their English proficiency directly. A student who scores slightly above average on the SAT verbal, but who scores below average on the TESOL, for instance, is actually likely to be a brilliant literature scholar. And the admissions officers know to look out for this pattern.

[andyandy]

thanks drkitten :)

[bigred]

Yes, I am familiar with the notion of low teacher salaries, and I certainly believe it in regards to NYC schools, as I know some teachers here. But I don't know in general if teachers in this country don't actually make a decent living. .Obviously this depends a lot on what one considers "making a decent living." Also it's not really fair (either way) to lump all teachers together, eg college prof's make a heckuva lot more than elementary school teachers.

Since many teachers have masters degrees, they may make on average less than similarly educated people, but then the same can be said of librarians, social workers and other professionals with advanced degrees. But I bet if you look at most people with a Masters, they are better off than comparable teachers with a Masters, which I think was the point (ie not to say teachers are at the very bottom of the heap).

[bigred]

unless you're willing to increase the S/T ratio to something like 30:1 -- which I think is fine so long as the 30 pay attention and obey the 1. And as I mentioned before, there's the problem. 30:1 should be easily do-able (it was in days gone by) but with teacher's authority shredded by our brilliant legal system and a whiny bleeding-heart "don't yell at my baby" society in general, it's become absurdly difficult if not impossible.

[cbish]

Dustin
A few questions.

In your opinion, why are high performing schools, "high performing"?
Conversly, why are low performing schools, "low performing"?

What's the difference between the two schools?

[Blert]

Then the tests could be set up in a way where it isn't possible to prepare for them other than general education.

This, of course, is the Holy Grail of testing---a test that tests actual education rather than knowledge, in an objective way rather than subjective, and is easy enough to grade that many, many thousands can be graded and data collected in a relatively short time (*snark on* and we're probably just about as likely to find it as we are the actual HG *snark off*)

I'm not missing the point. I never said McDonalds was healthy or good to eat. I simply said they are successful because people like their product.

I still think you are missing the point (or trolling me *wink wink*). The real point is motivation: making money vs. teaching kids. Most of the time, capitalism reduces everything to making money. Education can go the way of McDonald's: popular, but no substance, especially if it is profitable---frankly, this is what capitalism does to pretty much any thing it touches (at least in modern, mass-mareketed times).

It doesn't 'suck' for education. They use school vouchers in many european countries where their students blow American students away when it comes to basic knowledge.

There is a large culture difference between the US and European countries: the US tries to educate everyone; most European countries only educate their top students---the rest go to technical education. In the US, this is called "tracking" and is not considered desirable.

How about talking to the child?

Heh, you forgot your snark tag. But assuming you're serious, when is the last time you knew a child who was mature enough to know the difference? Frankly, I'm not certain most parents can tell, much less the kids...

My point is, your kid may be enjoying his school and you think everything is going fine---you won't know it's not working until 12 years have passed and your kid tries to go to college only to find out he doesn't know anything.

[Blert]

If you really are curious about some things that are being tried, google TSTEM. The Gates and Dell Foundations are looking to put some fundage into creating what they call "learning academies"---grade 6-12 schools with a limit of 100 students per grade and a focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

The plan is to establish these academies with business and university partners and to integrate both into the curriculum. The business partners not only put money into the schools, but commit to send their employees to give the students some real-world perspective and challenge them with actual problems. The university partners commit to actual put some college profs into the classroom (experts in the STEM fields, not Ed Ph.D.'s---i.e. folks who will actually be teaching the future college classes these kids will be taking) and have them on call for consultation so that the transition from the upper grades to college is smoother (though, to be honest, this is already happening in many schools, especially those located in towns with universities).

In addition, the curriculum is supposed to be integrated across the board. There aren't supposed to be distinct classes for science, math, writing, etc.---it's all the same stuff, and the teachers from the different areas team-teach everything and concentrate on developing interdisciplinary lessons rather than living in separate arbitrarily defined boxes.

It's a pretty neat idea. The folks involved with developing the academies are supposed to be looking to make their results repeatable by others so that these academies can be the templates for future schools. Too, there's a somewhat competitive aspect: the Foundations only want to continue to fund stuff that's actually working (though they're willing to give the academies a few years to work out the kinks and start showing success).

Cookies to Gates and Dell, et. al. for putting their monies where their mouths are---with any luck, it'll work.

[fuelair]

I think you are being a little elitist. Education should be more than just learning facts. It should be about understanding these facts in context an having the mental tools to apply reason and give insight. Who says knowing “who the vice president is” is important to these people, Why is an interest in who runs your country an indication of your smartness? I'm sure there are ton's of PHDs that don't know the answer to some of those questions.

BTW I had to look up 9/11/01 to find out what day it was, I knew it was a weekday as I remember where I was. I remember it was morning because they wanted heavy commuter jets full of fuel for a trans-continental trip. There's a whole list of relevant facts that I know that give me insight to the why it happened. The fact it was a Tuesday is pretty low down on that list. Does that make me dumb?

I guess I'm a bit sore as I was and still am a terrible speller, It just wasn't that important to me and now I have spell checkers so In your face "you can't take English lit. until your spelling improved" teacher! I probably read more than most of the students in your class anyway.

reaches for meds....
:)
as much as I value D's abilities at knowledge and extrapolation from same (not at all), I suspect the "What day was 9/11?" question was meant to be answered " September 11th (possibly "2001")". I doubt even silly testers would expect the day of the week.

[Beth]

There is evidence that school choice, in the form of vouchers and charter schools, improve education. You might check out this paper for a fairly detailed study:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/hoxby_2.pdf

[slingblade]

There is evidence that school choice, in the form of vouchers and charter schools, improve education. You might check out this paper for a fairly detailed study:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/hoxby_2.pdf

That's what I'm asking Dustin to provide. Some kind of evidence beyond his own, apparently uninformed, opinion. Until I see his evidence, I have no idea what informs his opinion and can't agree with it just cuz he makes it sound nice.

See, Dustin? It can be done. Too bad it wasn't you who did it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin
A few questions.

In your opinion, why are high performing schools, "high performing"?
Conversly, why are low performing schools, "low performing"?

What's the difference between the two schools?

I don't know exactly.

That's what i'm trying to figure out.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's what I'm asking Dustin to provide. Some kind of evidence beyond his own, apparently uninformed, opinion. Until I see his evidence, I have no idea what informs his opinion and can't agree with it just cuz he makes it sound nice.

See, Dustin? It can be done. Too bad it wasn't you who did it.



That's because I’m too lazy to google studies on it. But evidence has been provided so it's irrelevant who posted it.

[fuelair]

That's because I’m too lazy .

My point all along. Just stop looking up things for him and this silliness might end.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

My point all along. Just stop looking up things for him and this silliness might end.


This isn't some kind of test. This is a thread to figure out the true cause of the educational problem in America. It's irrelevant who looks up what. What is relevant is that we get the answers we're looking for to get to the bottom of this problem.



So now that a study has been posted showing that Vouchers do increase the effectiveness of education. Now let's discuss that.

[slingblade]

This isn't some kind of test. This is a thread to figure out the true cause of the educational problem in America. It's irrelevant who looks up what. What is relevant is that we get the answers we're looking for to get to the bottom of this problem.

Who the hell is this WE, kiddo? You started this thread, and you did so based on one idea from one guy on one TV show. You did it with no knowledge whatsoever, and yet you spent the whole thread trying to tell people how great vouchers are, when the truth is, you don't have a clue.

Why can't we use School vouchers for EVERY student in America?

That's your question. And this whole thread has been your attempt to get others to do your thinking for you, do your reasearch for you, and make your conclusion for you, so long as that conclusion agrees with your vague, uninformed notions.

And yet you have the nerve to whine that people here don't know how to argue using logic and critical thinking? You actually think it's okay to pout that people use fallacies against you, but refuse to argue logically yourself?

You've no qualms whatsoever about publicly admitting you are too lazy to do your own research and inform your own opinion and arguments. You have no problem letting others do the work you should be doing.

Go back to the playground, sonny. You aren't ready for this.

So now that a study has been posted showing that Vouchers do increase the effectiveness of education. Now let's discuss that.

Hell no, Lazy. I have no interest in discussing anything with you ever again.

My only interest concerning you at this point is to inform others here that you want them to think for you, and to be wary of falling for your childish ploys.

[drkitten]

So now that a study has been posted showing that Vouchers do increase the effectiveness of education. Now let's discuss that.

Certainly. Why does the unrepresentativeness of the sample not make it meaningless to attempt to generalize as a policy issue?

[slingblade]

Certainly. Why does the unrepresentativeness of the sample not make it meaningless to attempt to generalize as a policy issue?


You tell him; that's what he's waiting for.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

At present, I'm working on a PhD in Adult, Professional, and Community Education. I'm a historian, archivist, and college professor. As a part of my dissertation work I've been doing a lot of meta-analysis of the public educational system and how it prepares students to be critical thinkers rather than people who can pass a test and "get into college." The reality is, critical thinking - the chief tool to inspire research, novelty, and development - is the opposite of what the educational system has become.

To put it bluntly, school has become a kind of secular church. You sit down, shut up, learn what you're told, and nothing more. If you question the teacher you're shut up because teachers have to cover so much material they can't "waste time" addressing "useless" questions.

In education, one of the keys to good teaching is the ability to seize upon a "teachable moment." For example, you tell a student that adding potassium to hydrochloric acid generate hydrogen. If someone asks "why" then that should be a teachable moment for explaining the migration of electrons, etc. However, in "teaching to the test," the unfortunate situation we're now in, there is no time to actually encourage this aspect of critical thinking.

Now, there are some good reasons why private schools work. While the schools themselves may not have particularly high standards, the PARENTS are taking the time to put kids into the private schools. This means the parents are focused on education and are probably providing a learning environment in the home. Sadly, this isn't always the case in the public schools. Many parents simply don't give a damn and they wouldn't move their kids even if they could. My own parents were much like this - they simply didn't care how well we did in school. I did fine, my sister didn't even graduate. So, private schools and voucher programs are SELF-SELECTING.

Secondly, private schools have more freedom to teach and more freedom to pay. I know the "I won't pay taxes to save my own mother" people hate to hear it, but teacher pay sucks. And when you pay someone a pitiful wage to do a job, you're going to get pitiful employees. I have a friend that's a principal at a local high school and she pretty much has to take warm bodies - she needs 90 teachers total right now and can only come up with about 70. She gets teachers right out of college and within five years, when they can make a good living doing something else, they quit. How many of us would like to live on a teacher's salary for thirty years, especially taking into account what college costs these days? Not me...that's why I work where I work.

Money is not the only solution, but it's a big part of it. If schools had the resources to pay an outstanding wage to their teachers, they could demand quality instead of having to take warm bodies. I know this is a solution no one seems to like, but it's the key to the whole issue. You get good teachers if you can pay a good wage.

[Beth]

Certainly. Why does the unrepresentativeness of the sample not make it meaningless to attempt to generalize as a policy issue?

It's been awhile since I read the paper; I don't recall any serious deficiencies in the sampling procedure. It's a retrospective study, which means it has some inherent limitations. Since vouchers and charter schools are not available everywhere they were limited to studying the places where school choice has been implemented to determine what effect it had on educational outcomes.

It's reasonable to use information like this when discussing policy issues because it is what we have. Even if the data isn't as representative as we might like it to be, unless you have a better done study that contradicts or otherwise improves on the information in this one it seems reasonable to me to use this as a starting point for discussion.

Could you outline what bias you think might be present due to unrepresentative sampling that is not part of the retrospective nature of the study? And what effect that bias might be expected to have on conclusions and policy discussion?

[andyandy]

There is a large culture difference between the US and European countries: the US tries to educate everyone; most European countries only educate their top students---the rest go to technical education. In the US, this is called "tracking" and is not considered desirable.





I'd like to see some evidence that "most European countries only educate their top students---the rest go to technical education."

What levels are you talking about here?
Under 16?
16-18?
18+?

What percentage are the "top" students?

What do you mean by "technical education"?

When you say "most European countries" would you include the UK in this?

basically, could you expand your assertion.....? :)

[Beth]

So, private schools and voucher programs are SELF-SELECTING.

This is why the best studies look at voucher programs where the students who actually received the vouchers were chosen via random selection and are compared not to the entire student popuation, but to those students who applied for vouchers but did not receive them. Such an approach eliminates the self-selection bias.

[drkitten]

It's been awhile since I read the paper;

That's all right. Dustin has never read the paper.


Could you outline what bias you think might be present due to unrepresentative sampling that is not part of the retrospective nature of the study? And what effect that bias might be expected to have on conclusions and policy discussion?

I certainly could, but won't. Not now. Pas devant les enfants, ma cherie. Little pitchers have big ears.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Don't worry about 'drkitten' he/she thinks everything is bias that doesn't agree with his preconceptions.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

This is why the best studies look at voucher programs where the students who actually received the vouchers were chosen via random selection and are compared not to the entire student popuation, but to those students who applied for vouchers but did not receive them. Such an approach eliminates the self-selection bias.

That's all well and good, of course. But the problem is one of slipperly slope. If we put EVERYONE in a voucher school system, we've simply created a de facto public school system. Would it be safe to assume, then, that perhaps the techniques used in those school or perhaps their pay scale are in fact the real reasons why the students do better? It seems to me, the better solution would be to study what makes a voucher school a good school and incorporate that into the public education system we already have.

[drkitten]

I'd like to see some evidence that "most European countries only educate their top students---the rest go to technical education."

basically, could you expand your assertion.....? :)


I think I can expand some on this. You're in the UK, right? Then I assume you're familiar with the history and practice of the 11-plus exam? Until relatively recently (and to the present day in some areas like NI and Buckinghamshire, if I remember correctly), students were "tracked" by examination into one of several different types of secondary education. The top 25% or so went to grammar schools, while the rest went to various forms of "secondary schools, " including (on paper), "secondary technical schools" -- essentially trade schools. The 11-plus has of course largely been abolished, but the difference between grammar and "comprehensive" schools is still very real and very significant in affecting one's chance at university.

And, of course, most of the lower-tier "universities" are actually former "polytechnics," which focus much more on trades and technical education. Classic example -- the University of Oxford vs. Oxford Brookes University, just across the river. Brookes offers degrees in "nutrition," "exercise," "construction management," "hospitality management,".... well, you get the idea. I can only imagine what Sebastian's parents -- or Lord Peter Wimsey's -- would have told him if he had read "hospitality management."

There's a similar tracking sytem in place in the Netherlands. Depending upon the score of the Centraal Instituut voor ToetsOntwikkeling tests (and the recommendation of their elementary schools), students are assigned to one of four different types of schools, the VMBO, HAVO, VWO or Gymnasium. (You don't really want to know what the alphabet soup stands for, do you?) Typically, only students from the top two are permitted to go to university.

The Finns have a similar 2-part disctinction between academic and vocational schools (you do NOT want the Finnish terms), which in turn they derived from ....

The Germans, who distinguish between Hauptschule, Realschule, and Gymnasium -- again the expectation is that only Gymnasium graduates will attend university.

The French similarly have the lycée général, the lycée technologique, and lycée professionel; the first two usually lead to university while the third prepares students for vocational/technical fields (craftsmen and such).

By contrast, there are relatively few high schools in the United States (or Canada) that are designated as "vocational/technical" or "academic." Instead, students of all types are typically grouped and educated together (although many schools have "tracks" that amounts to a de-facto school within a school).

[drkitten]

Don't worry about 'drkitten' he/she thinks everything is bias that doesn't agree with his preconceptions.

See what I mean, Beth? He doesn't even bother to read the evidence that supports his position.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

See what I mean, Beth? He doesn't even bother to read the evidence that supports his position.


You mean that study posted?

I read that this morning.

[Beth]

That's all well and good, of course. But the problem is one of slipperly slope. If we put EVERYONE in a voucher school system, we've simply created a de facto public school system.

Voucher proposals differ rather dramatically. I do think that vouchers have merit in many cases, but proposals have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.


Would it be safe to assume, then, that perhaps the techniques used in those school or perhaps their pay scale are in fact the real reasons why the students do better? No. The study looked at school systems across a rather broad spectrum. The choice schools cannot be assumed to have either techniques or pay scales that are common to them but not to public institutions.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that allowing parents more educational choices has generally resulted in an overall improvement to the educational system. Thus, proposals for vouchers and charter schools seem a reasonable option for a community to consider. At the very least, there doesn't seem to be any substantive evidence (none that I've seen yet anyway) that indicates that allowing parents more options will cause a deterioration in educational outcomes for either the students who take advantage of those options or for the students who remain in public schools.


It seems to me, the better solution would be to study what makes a voucher school a good school and incorporate that into the public education system we already have.

Instituting systemic change through the methods you are suggesting can and does take decades. For parents who have concerns about the quality of education their children are recieving now, broadening school choice options for them gives them the ability to positively impact their child's education immediately.

In addition, large public institutions such as school systems often have a "if it's good, it's good for everybody" attitude, but education is not a 'one size fits all' commodity. By allowing parents more choices, they can select a school more suited to their child and/or families needs even if what suits their child best would not necessarily be the best choice for the majority.

[cbish]

I don't know exactly.

That's what i'm trying to figure out.That's interesting because you seem to have some very definitive opinions on this. I curious why you would advocate a fix (i.e. vouchers) when there is no diagnosis of the problem.

[drkitten]

That's interesting because you seem to have some very definitive opinions on this. I curious why you would advocate a fix (i.e. vouchers) when there is no diagnosis of the problem.

Read the rest of his postings and threads and it will become clear. He thinks the current school system is fraudulent and will embrace any half-baked idea that promises reform.

[andyandy]

I think I can expand some on this. You're in the UK, right? Then I assume you're familiar with the history and practice of the 11-plus exam? Until relatively recently (and to the present day in some areas like NI and Buckinghamshire, if I remember correctly), students were "tracked" by examination into one of several different types of secondary education. The top 25% or so went to grammar schools, while the rest went to various forms of "secondary schools, " including (on paper), "secondary technical schools" -- essentially trade schools. The 11-plus has of course largely been abolished, but the difference between grammar and "comprehensive" schools is still very real and very significant in affecting one's chance at university.

And, of course, most of the lower-tier "universities" are actually former "polytechnics," which focus much more on trades and technical education. Classic example -- the University of Oxford vs. Oxford Brookes University, just across the river. Brookes offers degrees in "nutrition," "exercise," "construction management," "hospitality management,".... well, you get the idea. I can only imagine what Sebastian's parents -- or Lord Peter Wimsey's -- would have told him if he had read "hospitality management."
.

hmmm....im not sure it's an especially accurate way of understanding the current UK system - which has been marked by a very significant transition away from vocational towards the academic......
The difference is not between "comprehensive" and "grammar" (which don't actually exist anymore) but between state and private (also confusingly called public). However this distinction follows more along the lines of better equipment/lower student;teacher ratios/etc. rather than along vocational and academic lines.
Equally, there has been a huge shift towards A-levels (for 16-18yrs olds) away from more traditional vocational courses - and where vocational courses remain they have been largely incorporated into a more academic framework.
And again at university level, degrees remain largely academic rather than vocational - even at newer and less prestigious colleges. So whilst it's certainly true that the newer universities do have a greater breadth of courses available, their framework is still an academic one......

Now, it would be right to question whether the government's goal of 50% university attendance is a valid one - for the more people that attain a degree, the less intrinsic value each certificate is worth in the marketplace - and in the last few years we have started to see the workplace flooded with tens of thousands of newly qualified graduates in sports science or media studies - and for whom their degrees confer much less status or relevance than other more academic fields, and yet at the same time do not fit the vocational need for such skills....

So i would suggest that there has been a marked shift away from vocational to academic over the past 20 years - although whether this shift is especially beneficial, i'm not so sure :)

but i couldn't comment on the rest of europe....

[ZirconBlue]

the Centraal Instituut voor ToetsOntwikkeling tests

OK, admit it. You just made that up, didn't you?

[drkitten]

OK, admit it. You just made that up, didn't you?

I wish I were that good.

The other problem with Dutch is pronunciation. It may be spelled Centraal Instituut voor ToetsOntwikkeling, but it's pronounced "throatwarbler-mangrove."

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's interesting because you seem to have some very definitive opinions on this. I curious why you would advocate a fix (i.e. vouchers) when there is no diagnosis of the problem.


It doesn't take a genius to figure that our education system has problems. That's obvious. The real problem is identifying those problems and finding solutions. I believe school vouchers would improve our schools a lot like they have many European schools.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Read the rest of his postings and threads and it will become clear. He thinks the current school system is fraudulent and will embrace any half-baked idea that promises reform.


You claim vouchers are 'half baked' but studies have been posted supporting their effectiveness.

[cbish]

It doesn't take a genius to figure that our education system has problems. That's obvious. The real problem is identifying those problems and finding solutions. I believe school vouchers would improve our schools a lot like they have many European schools.

So what are the problems? ID a few. What are the causes?
How would vouchers actually do this?
What is it about low performing schools that cause them to be low performing?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So what are the problems? ID a few. What are the causes?
How would vouchers actually do this?
What is it about low performing schools that cause them to be low performing?


I really don't know about any of the underlying causes. I know the problem is our students are ignorant. Simply put.

I think vouchers would enact competition between schools causing them to up their efforts in order to actually get funding and to actually even exist. In capitalist nature they will compete against other schools for paying students and will try to improve their standards and environments to make students/parents want to pick their schools. This has been proven to work.

Allowing a school to continue to get funding regardless of it actually working or not seems absurd to me. So does increasing the funding when it's been shown over and over that increases in funding don't actually correlate to higher scores.

[slingblade]

I really don't know about any of the underlying causes. I know the problem is our students are ignorant. Simply put.

:id:


I think vouchers would enact competition between schools causing them to up their efforts in order to actually get funding and to actually even exist. In capitalist nature they will compete against other schools for paying students and will try to improve their standards and environments to make students/parents want to pick their schools. This has been proven to work.

Really? Where?

Allowing a school to continue to get funding regardless of it actually working or not seems absurd to me. So does increasing the funding when it's been shown over and over that increases in funding don't actually correlate to higher scores.

:words:

[cbish]

I think vouchers would enact competition between schools causing them to up their efforts ...........will try to improve their standards and environments to make students/parents want to pick their schools.

Or not. Substitue the idea of "improved standards" with "receive better grades" and you're on to something. See Dustin, most people are really shallow in this area. They're not interested in actually learning anything, they want the grade. Which is more likely? A student transfering teachers because the teacher is too easy or they want an easier teacher? Be honest!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Or not. Substitue the idea of "improved standards" with "receive better grades" and you're on to something. See Dustin, most people are really shallow in this area. They're not interested in actually learning anything, they want the grade. Which is more likely? A student transfering teachers because the teacher is too easy or they want an easier teacher? Be honest!


It wouldn't make a difference if the testing was standardized. "Easy teachers" would end up having students score the lowest on standardized tests.

[andyandy]

It wouldn't make a difference if the testing was standardized. "Easy teachers" would end up having students score the lowest on standardized tests.

How can you judge as to whether a child with a low standardized score is a student with high potential held back by a poor teacher, or a student with low potential who achieved their score as a result of good teaching?

The answer? More tests? test them at 14 and then measure them at 16? OK, but how do we know whether those test results at 14 were the students over-achieving/underachieving/at expected potential? test them at 12! Oh but, hang on that's not going to help is it......?

The end result of such a system would be standardized testing throughout an entire child's school life - and of course, if the tests are important to the school and to the teacher, then greater resources will be shifted to "teaching the test." Here the goal is no longer the absolute one of "more intelligent children" - now it's children who score more highly on the standardized test. the two are certainly not the same - and a shift of emphasis from the former to the latter actually undermines the entire education framework it tries to reform.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How can you judge as to whether a child with a low standardized score is a student with high potential held back by a poor teacher, or a student with low potential who achieved their score as a result of good teaching?

The answer? More tests? test them at 14 and then measure them at 16? OK, but how do we know whether those test results at 14 were the students over-achieving/underachieving/at expected potential? test them at 12! Oh but, hang on that's not going to help is it......?

The end result of such a system would be standardized testing throughout an entire child's school life - and of course, if the tests are important to the school and to the teacher, then greater resources will be shifted to "teaching the test." Here the goal is no longer the absolute one of "more intelligent children" - now it's children who score more highly on the standardized test. the two are certainly not the same - and a shift of emphasis from the former to the latter actually undermines the entire education framework it tries to reform.


All of what you say is true even in our current system which obviously is failing our students. I think the effects of what you're saying will be less in a school where parents are given the choice of the schools they send their children.

I also think tests can be designed so that they can't be studied for except through general education. For instance not giving out 'practice' tests or telling teachers how the tests will be set up.

[cbish]

It wouldn't make a difference if the testing was standardized. "Easy teachers" would end up having students score the lowest on standardized tests.says who? What if the bad teacher had smart kids?

Back to the question "what is it about low performing schools that cause them to be low performing." So far the answer has been that they are ignorant. Can we infer then that bad schools have dumb kids and good schools have smart kids? I don't disagree with that necessarily. So our focus has been all wrong. To improve our schools, each school should recruit better students and cut out the dead wood. That should do it. If you mean ignorant in the literal sense of the word, we're attacking the wrong profession. We should reform journalism.

[andyandy]

I also think tests can be designed so that they can't be studied for except through general education. For instance not giving out 'practice' tests or telling teachers how the tests will be set up.

That sounds a rather utopian idea - so should the tests not be based in any way on the national (state?) curriculum? Then on what should they be based? General knowledge? General knowledge of what? And sure, in the first year, the teachers can't prepare their students - but what about in the 2nd year? Who's not going to use past papers to see what merits inclusion? And so, should the test be completely changed each year - both in content and focus to prevent past paper preparation? In that case how can it provide any sort of comparative standardized score for the students as they progress through their school life?

But ultimately an exam which sought to test things which could not be studied would not be an effective way of assessing teachers' ability at teaching.

[Beth]

One of the major advantages I see in vouchers is that they would provide far greater flexibility for everyone involved. One parent might feel that lack of discipline is the problem and select a school with a strong disciplinary approach and traditional learning methods. Another parent might feel that child-led learning is the way to go and select a school more like Sudbury. Neither approach is inherently wrong, but they aren't mutually compatible. Since different children respond to different approaches, it's quite reasonable to suppose that some children will do better in the first type of school, others will excel in the second type. By giving parents more vouchers, we are giving control over the education of a child to the people who know the child best.

Will they always make good decisions? No. But I think they are more likely to do so and am willing to back up that belief by being willing to give them control of some of the tax dollars devoted to educating their child.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

says who? What if the bad teacher had smart kids?

Back to the question "what is it about low performing schools that cause them to be low performing." So far the answer has been that they are ignorant. Can we infer then that bad schools have dumb kids and good schools have smart kids? I don't disagree with that necessarily. So our focus has been all wrong. To improve our schools, each school should recruit better students and cut out the dead wood. That should do it. If you mean ignorant in the literal sense of the word, we're attacking the wrong profession. We should reform journalism.


I really don't know the underlying causes of why specific schools fail.

I don't believe that schools would be prejudice of the stupid kids if vouchers were used. I think that schools would pop up to meet their need like always occurs in capitalism.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That sounds a rather utopian idea - so should the tests not be based in any way on the national (state?) curriculum? Then on what should they be based? General knowledge? General knowledge of what? And sure, in the first year, the teachers can't prepare their students - but what about in the 2nd year? Who's not going to use past papers to see what merits inclusion? And so, should the test be completely changed each year - both in content and focus to prevent past paper preparation? In that case how can it provide any sort of comparative standardized score for the students as they progress through their school life?

But ultimately an exam which sought to test things which could not be studied would not be an effective way of assessing teachers' ability at teaching.

Why not the state curriculum? What's the problem with that?
General knowledge of what? Of what the state curriculum is. Whatever it may be.
The test should be changed each year but it should contain basically the same types of material. Such as the G.E.D or the S.A.T. Have the test ask random questions in the specific curriculum and have those specified questions rotate each year.

[slingblade]

I really don't know the underlying causes of why specific schools fail.

But why don't you realize that without that information, you can't possibly know if a voucher system would address the problem?


I don't believe that schools would be prejudice of the stupid kids if vouchers were used.

What does this even mean? "Stupid kids?"


I think that schools would pop up to meet their need like always occurs in capitalism.

Meeting a need and meeting it well are two different things. Yes, capitalism would change the education system. You have yet to prove it would change it for the better.

And we all know you don't intend to prove it. You intend to read what others say, and if you see anything that sounds good, you'll parrot it, without having a clue. Your voucher system idea does reflect your idea of education, however: you want to be spoon-fed, and don't want to have to actually think about what you're consuming.

The worst part is that you don't have any idea how sad that is.

[drkitten]

I really don't know the underlying causes of why specific schools fail.

... but, on the other hand, you're sure that vouchers are the fix.

And you're the one telling us that you should be able to practice medicine without schooling, either.

"Well, I haven't been able to pinpoint exactly what's wrong with you, Mr. Simpson, but I'm confident that removing your gall bladder will clear it right up.

[andyandy]

Why not the state curriculum? What's the problem with that?
General knowledge of what? Of what the state curriculum is. Whatever it may be.
The test should be changed each year but it should contain basically the same types of material. Such as the G.E.D or the S.A.T. Have the test ask random questions in the specific curriculum and have those specified questions rotate each year.

*sigh*

if you do tests based on the whole school curriculum then you are necessarily ensuring that the tests can be studied for - something you expressly ruled out before....It's naive to think that a test of such great importance to school and teacher would result in anything other than more restrictive exam-centric schooling - where children learn to take tests.

and once you have these test scores what then? Who decides if they were achieved through good teaching or bad teaching? You need to have testing throughout the entire school system with which to compare the results. Thus the curriculum becomes ever more exam-centric. And this is not a good way to reform the education sector.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

*sigh*

if you do tests based on the whole school curriculum then you are necessarily ensuring that the tests can be studied for - something you expressly ruled out before....It's naive to think that a test of such great importance to school and teacher would result in anything other than more restrictive exam-centric schooling - where children learn to take tests.

and once you have these test scores what then? Who decides if they were achieved through good teaching or bad teaching? You need to have testing throughout the entire school system with which to compare the results. Thus the curriculum becomes ever more exam-centric. And this is not a good way to reform the education sector.


I said the tests could be studied for simply by studying general education. Opposed to studying what you know will be tested for. In this case the teachers won't know what will be tested for other than the general education curriculum.

Once we have the test scores how do we determine if good scores came from good education or bad education? How could students score high if they had bad education?

And I’ve already said that the parents could figure other means in which to base their decisions on. Not simply the test scores.

Pointing out that it would be hard for parents to pick the right school isn't a criticism of vouchers and it definitely isn't a defense of our current model where parents have absolutely no choice in the schools their children attend if they can't afford anything else.

[slingblade]

...our current model where parents have absolutely no choice in the schools their children attend if they can't afford anything else.

Not true. We moved into a new neighborhood. The elementary school there had a closed curriculum. I didn't like that, so I checked into the schools in surrounding districts. There was an elementary school with an open curriculum not too far from the first school. I was perfectly free to enroll my son there, provided I took care of the transportation, as their busses didn't come to my district, of course.

"Absolutely no choice" is too broad, and not true.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Not true. We moved into a new neighborhood. The elementary school there had a closed curriculum. I didn't like that, so I checked into the schools in surrounding districts. There was an elementary school with an open curriculum not too far from the first school. I was perfectly free to enroll my son there, provided I took care of the transportation, as their busses didn't come to my district, of course.

"Absolutely no choice" is too broad, and not true.


Saying 'all parents' have absolutely no choice might be too broad however 'little choice' is a better term.

In most school areas I’ve encountered, You have only 1 choice to where your student goes to school. I remember when I was in middle school and high school I couldn't go to the schools of my choice because they were out of my zoning area. I was forced to go to schools located within the area of which I lived even though I had transportation to the other schools. My mother pleaded to the school administrators and school board to no avail.

So this is definitely a problem for many parents. In many cases they do indeed have absolutely no choice in where their children attend school. Unless they can pay to send them to a private school then they must go to the public school that is in their zone.

This is mentioned in the article by John Stossel I linked in a previous post

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

When I was younger I also went to 2 different private schools. Both of which taught me nearly nothing. Since there was hardly any competition for them and they were the ones choosing who to accept and who to deny, They could teach the students in any way they choose without worrying about any competition since there weren't that many private schools in the area. In one of the private schools I attended for 1 year in the 7th grade I believe, They didn't teach me any math. At all. I think 1 day we opened up 1 math book and looked it over for a few minutes. That was all the math we did the entire year.

[andyandy]

I said the tests could be studied for simply by studying general education. Opposed to studying what you know will be tested for. In this case the teachers won't know what will be tested for other than the general education curriculum.

Once we have the test scores how do we determine if good scores came from good education or bad education? How could students score high if they had bad education?

And I’ve already said that the parents could figure other means in which to base their decisions on. Not simply the test scores.

Pointing out that it would be hard for parents to pick the right school isn't a criticism of vouchers and it definitely isn't a defense of our current model where parents have absolutely no choice in the schools their children attend if they can't afford anything else.

"In this case the teachers won't know what will be tested for other than the general education curriculum." It is perfectly possible to study the test - to learn the style of questions, the style of answers required - and for the teacher to re-orientate their entire teaching style to accommodate this. For these tests to have any validity as a measure of teaching they will require carrying out in comprehensive fashion in every subject on a regular basis.

"Once we have the test scores how do we determine if good scores came from good education or bad education? How could students score high if they had bad education?"

As pointed out earlier, students with "good" scores may have had a much higher starting potential than students with less "good" scores - and so it is perfectly possible for a student to score much less highly on a given test - but to have been a beneficiary of much better teaching than a student who beats them on the standardized scale. This is rather obvious.

[Kopji]

I don't see things as dark as the abc article. Schools seem much improved.
If we could do some of these things I think that is a good direction:

Provide a variety of educational environments - not every student is the same nor learns the same way and pace.
Reward good teachers.
Help poor teachers be better teachers or be able to replace them.
Have as horizontal and 'thin' administration as possible.
Measure how much money goes to the classroom as a basic performance metric.
Focus on student strengths, a Charter school tends to do this. (I like the Charter school concept.)
Involve parents more.
Involve business more.
Maintain accountability to basic standards.

A completely capitalist or voucher education system begs the question of why collect taxes for education at all. What value would the government add in such a situation? Would you just require student performance reporting at certain intervals? If they did not perform to standard, then you would just... ah, that's what government adds. With public education the process has a chance of being in control. In a voucher or privatized system what leverage is there for non performance?

[Grundar]

Late joiner in the debate. Since I'm from Sweden I can't comment on the specifics of the American system. I just wanted to point out that if you want to have varied standard tests, there will be hell validating them so that you can be sure that the test measures what it is supposed to.

Also a good comment i heard about teaching for the tests i heard somewhere during my first year of studying to become a teacher. If you want to change whats taught in the classroom there are two ways. you could enter the change in the official curriculum (we have a nationwide one) and it might happen in 10 to 20 years, or you could make a change to the standard test and it will change tomorrow.
ETA. That is not the way it is supposed to be and a bit cynical but probably all to true.

/Hans

[Blert]

While I do now see the merits of choice (and that I was conflating "choice" and "capitalism"---thanks, Beth) there are opportunities now for folks to form charter schools and the like without having to deal with the confounding issues raised by vouchers. Many of these choice/competition advantages can be had in the current system without needing the free-market crowd.

My concern is that introducing capitalism into the educational system will lead to bigger problems than what we have now. I don't quite have Dustin's optimism that we will be able to design a testing system that will have the required flexibility and ease of grading, yet test actual education rather than just knowledge. I have a bad feeling that education will turn into big business and that folks with big money will get into and expect a return on their investment---this will lead to corporate interests lobbying the body that devises the tests to produce a test that is more favorable to their interests: that is to say, passes their students so that their marketing departments can crow about how good their product is.

At worst, we'll have what we have in pretty much all semi-free markets: a lot of flash and convenience, very little substance or true value. Take the restaurant industry, the recording industry, or the auto industry as an example: popularity seldom correlates with high quality (unless you can afford the extra cost!) in these choice-driven markets. Granted the quality is there if you know how to look for it and are willing to pay for it, but that's what we have now.

At best, we'll get something like the situation that came from health-care deregulation or power company deregulation---a gain in quality, sure, but with steeply and constantly increasing cost. In fact, you'll notice that the government is being forced to take action in both cases because normal folks can no longer afford these basic services---which rather brings us right back to where we started.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Remember when the phone company was the Govt? Then when companies were able to provide phone services the quality suddenly improved due to the capitalist competition? Sure there are a lot of useless and 'flashy' with no substance phone services. However there are also a lot of phone services that provide real quality service and do so because they want the customers.

[slingblade]

Remember when the phone company was the Govt?

Remember that you weren't alive then, but I was, and that the government never owned AT&T?

I apologize in advance, as we're not supposed to be rude, but my gawd, could you be a bigger ignoramus?


Then when companies were able to provide phone services the quality suddenly improved due to the capitalist competition? Sure there are a lot of useless and 'flashy' with no substance phone services. However there are also a lot of phone services that provide real quality service and do so because they want the customers.

You mean when the AT&T monopoly was busted by the government in anti-trust actions? Also before you were born?

Dustin, I shall dub thee "clueless." And you should now be praying to whatever it is you pray to in thanks that you didn't have to take one of those tests you prattle on about. You'd still be in school.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Remember that you weren't alive then, but I was, and that the government never owned AT&T?

I apologize in advance, as we're not supposed to be rude, but my gawd, could you be a bigger ignoramus?




You mean when the AT&T monopoly was busted by the government in anti-trust actions? Also before you were born?

Dustin, I shall dub thee "clueless." And you should now be praying to whatever it is you pray to in thanks that you didn't have to take one of those tests you prattle on about. You'd still be in school.



<TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>1.</TD><TD vAlign=top>of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor; metaphorical; not literal: a figurative expression. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Figurative

[andyandy]

Remember when the phone company was the Govt? Then when companies were able to provide phone services the quality suddenly improved due to the capitalist competition? Sure there are a lot of useless and 'flashy' with no substance phone services. However there are also a lot of phone services that provide real quality service and do so because they want the customers.

opening up the education sector to full market forces would be just about the worst thing you could possibly do......Capitalism is not altruistic.....

quick example - keeping it simple

3 schools all within equi-distance of a given region

school A state school poor reputation

school B state school better reputation

school C private school.

Vouchers are introduced. say $10,000 per year per pupil. School C increases its prices by $10,000 per year. School B can charge more than school A - and does so. if the vouchers are $10,000 - then $11,000-$15,000 would be reasonable. School B has more income per-student and can afford better teachers/lower student;teacher ratios. School B is oversubscribed and so can set entrance tests to ensure that only the best can get in. School A can not set entrance exams, can not attract top teachers, can not match school B's income, can not provide the same teacher;student ratio, and as such if you're from a poor family you end up with a poor education.
So the only difference with vouchers would be that you would open up the entire education sector to market capitalism, benefiting the very rich, taxing the middle classes, and penalising the poor to an even greater extent than is already the case.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

opening up the education sector to full market forces would be just about the worst thing you could possibly do......Capitalism is not altruistic.....

quick example - keeping it simple

3 schools all within equi-distance of a given region

school A state school poor reputation

school B state school better reputation

school C private school.

Vouchers are introduced. say $10,000 per year per pupil. School C increases its prices by $10,000 per year. School B can charge more than school A - and does so. if the vouchers are $10,000 - then $11,000-$15,000 would be reasonable. School B has more income per-student and can afford better teachers/lower student;teacher ratios. School B is oversubscribed and so can set entrance tests to ensure that only the best can get in. School A can not set entrance exams, can not attract top teachers, can not match school B's income, can not provide the same teacher;student ratio, and as such if you're from a poor family you end up with a poor education.
So the only difference with vouchers would be that you would open up the entire education sector to market capitalism, benefiting the very rich, taxing the middle classes, and penalising the poor to an even greater extent than is already the case.


Your Scenario makes many assumptions.


That parents will continue to send their students to School C even if they could change schools and send them to another private school and pay nothing. Parents aren't dumb enough to simply use the vouchers for School C if it ups it's tuition by $10,000 a year when they could send them to another private school for free.
You're assuming that School A will continue to have a bad reputation even though it's in a business now and likely has more money coming to it and competitive pressures.
That new schools won't pop up to meet the need of the students in School A assuming it still performs poorly.
In reality and in any capitalist competitive environment things like that simply often happen.

[slingblade]

1. of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor; metaphorical; not literal: a figurative expression.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Figurative

Now you're just a coward who can't own up to his own ignorance. This trait of yours is frowned on in the grown-up world you are entering. You'd be well advised to learn to say three things, every time they apply to you (which is dismayingly often):

"I don't know."

"I was wrong about that."

I apologize for my error."

What you said was in NO WAY a trope. It was ignorance.

Just keep digging, kid.

[Blert]

Remember when the phone company was the Govt? Then when companies were able to provide phone services the quality suddenly improved due to the capitalist competition? Sure there are a lot of useless and 'flashy' with no substance phone services. However there are also a lot of phone services that provide real quality service and do so because they want the customers.

*snark* Are you conceding the point that capitalism does not magically solve all problems, or just being obtuse because you don't want to address the point? */snark*

Seriously, though: capitalism works stunningly well in luxury markets and expansion-type markets (like new technology) but tends to drive down quality in other types of markets. Take Wal-Mart as an example---they are ludicrously successful at generating profit by using volume to keep prices low. Everyone chooses to shop at Wal-Mart because they are big enough now that they can have thin operating budgets and buy low-quality items in huge bulk (at large discounts) and sell those items at prices that those with smaller market reach or higher quality standards simply can't match.

As a business model, there are fewer that consistently do better than Wal-Mart---it's friggin' genius from a capitalistic standpoint: keep prices low and deal in bulk. But customer service and merchandise quality are pretty uniformly poor---morale is usually bad (keep prices low), and they frequently make decisions on cost rather than quality (keep prices low). I'm not bashing Wal-Mart or the way they do business. I'm just saying that the capitalistic model does not always result in the best products reaching the consumer.

[Meadmaker]

Ahh, one of my favorite topics.

I have some catching up to do.

I first started posting on this topic a couple of years ago, and I was curious, and leaning toward vouchers. This was due to my experience as a parent living in a somewhat bad neighborhood. Having the means to move, I chose to do so, leaving behind those who did not have the means to move. I bought a house one mile away, of nearly identical size, with a price tag 100,000 higher than the house I lived in before, with higher property taxes to boot.

Our public school system is segregated by wealth. The one and only reason my current house cost so much more than my last one is because I was willing to pay more to have my child educated at a better school.

A lot of people don't realize that is the case, but when they vote, they do. Childless homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods consistently vote against vouchers and school choice programs. Childless homeowners in poor neighborhoods consistently vote for vouchers and other school choice programs. What gives? They don't have kids, so it isn't about where their kids go to school. What makes them vote the way they do?

It's really, really, easy to figure out. If you pass vouchers, property values in wealthy neighborhoods will drop. Property values in poor neighborhoods will rise. Contemplate why that will happen, and then try and make a case against school choice.

[andyandy]

Your Scenario makes many assumptions.


That parents will continue to send their students to School C even if they could change schools and send them to another private school and pay nothing. Parents aren't dumb enough to simply use the vouchers for School C if it ups it's tuition by $10,000 a year when they could send them to another private school for free.
You're assuming that School A will continue to have a bad reputation even though it's in a business now and likely has more money coming to it and competitive pressures.
That new schools won't pop up to meet the need of the students in School A assuming it still performs poorly.
In reality and in any capitalist competitive environment things like that simply often happen.

point 1. Private schools expect their students to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege. There are parents with the disposable income and inclination to be prepared to do this. If you give everyone $10,000 to spend on schooling then this merely becomes the base level from which school fees are judged. This really is rather basic. .....

point 2. why would market pressures benefit the education of students from poor backgrounds?

point 3. New schools are hugely expensive to build. Who funds them? If they are privately funded then that cost will inevitably be passed onto students.

[Meadmaker]

point 1. Private schools expect their students to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege. There are parents with the disposable income and inclination to be prepared to do this. If you give everyone $10,000 to spend on schooling then this merely becomes the base level from which school fees are judged. This really is rather basic. .....

point 2. why would market pressures benefit the education of students from poor backgrounds?

point 3. New schools are hugely expensive to build. Who funds them? If they are privately funded then that cost will inevitably be passed onto students.


Milwaukee and Cleveland have had vouchers for years, and these haven't been problems, and the educational quality for students attending all schools, public and private, appears to have improved.

Thought for the day: In areas where school choice has been increased, no voter referendum or legislative initiative has ever rolled it back. Where choice was restricted, it has always been through court order. That ought to make people think.

[Beth]

point 1. Private schools expect their students to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege. There are parents with the disposable income and inclination to be prepared to do this. If you give everyone $10,000 to spend on schooling then this merely becomes the base level from which school fees are judged. This really is rather basic. .....

No, I don't think it is. Do you have any evidence that this has occurred in areas where vouchers have been implemented?

point 2. why would market pressures benefit the education of students from poor backgrounds?

The idea is that public schools will respond to the pressure of potentially losing students and income and improve the education they provide for all students. There is evidence that public schools improved in Milwaukee after vouchers were introduced, so this is not an unreasonable supposition.

point 3. New schools are hugely expensive to build. Who funds them? If they are privately funded then that cost will inevitably be passed onto students.

A. New schools do not have to be hugely expensive to build. Depends on a variety of factors

B. New schools do not have to be built. Existing buildings could be converted into schools are a relatively low cost. Whether it's more cost-effective to build new school buildings or refurbish existing buildings would depend on the local situation.

C. The problem of cost of the building isn't really germane to the argument against vouchers. The costs must be dealt with whether the schools are public or private.

[andyandy]

No, I don't think it is. Do you have any evidence that this has occurred in areas where vouchers have been implemented?



well it is basic economics - if you give everyone $100,000 towards buying a new house then the base prices of houses will rise - simply because house sellers will be able to charge more for their property. The $100,000 in this case would act as an inflationary device for house prices. If it hasn't happened in areas where vouchers have been implemented then i'd be surprised. However, if people have evidence from areas in which vouchers have been used which contradicts this then i'll accept that.....

[Beth]

well it is basic economics - if you give everyone $100,000 towards buying a new house then the base prices of houses will rise - simply because house sellers will be able to charge more for their property. The $100,000 in this case would act as an inflationary device for house prices. If it hasn't happened in areas where vouchers have been implemented then i'd be surprised. However, if people have evidence from areas in which vouchers have been used which contradicts this then i'll accept that.....

But the analogy isn't really appropriate is it? It's more like you are offering anyone who isn't satisfied with their current rent-free dwelling $x to rent a different place. $x might or might not cover the cost of renting the new place, but I'm not so sure the cost of renting would invariably rise by $x.

[andyandy]

But the analogy isn't really appropriate is it? It's more like you are offering anyone who isn't satisfied with their current rent-free dwelling $x to rent a different place. $x might or might not cover the cost of renting the new place, but I'm not so sure the cost of renting would invariably rise by $x.

well it depends exactly how the voucher scheme is operated. If every student is given the same amount of voucher $$s to spend specifically on education then i believe the analogy is appropriate - certainly there would be significant inflationary pressure on school fees at private schools. The example you give would still lead to inflationary pressures - but if the vouchers were not widespread then this inflation would be less.

[Beth]

well it depends exactly how the voucher scheme is operated. If every student is given the same amount of voucher $$s to spend specifically on education then i believe the analogy is appropriate - certainly there would be significant inflationary pressure on school fees at private schools. The example you give would still lead to inflationary pressures - but if the vouchers were not widespread then this inflation would be less.

Okay. I can accept that depending on the voucher paln there could be some inflationary pressure on existing private schools. But it isn't an automatic "yes this would happen", but "depending on how it's done, this is one potential ramification". All that means is that such an effect should be taken into account when devising the plan and it isn't an argument against the concept of vouchers.

[andyandy]

Okay. I can accept that depending on the voucher paln there could be some inflationary pressure on existing private schools. But it isn't an automatic "yes this would happen", but "depending on how it's done, this is one potential ramification". All that means is that such an effect should be taken into account when devising the plan and it isn't an argument against the concept of vouchers.

to compensate for it, i assume there would have to be a means-tested voucher distribution - eg. all parents who could afford to send their students to private school would not receive it.

[Meadmaker]

If it hasn't happened in areas where vouchers have been implemented then i'd be surprised.

Be surprised. It hasn't happened. However, I don't remember if Milwaukee and Cleveland were means-tested. If I recall, Milwaukee was and Cleveland wasn't, but don't quote me on that.

[andyandy]

Be surprised. It hasn't happened. However, I don't remember if Milwaukee and Cleveland were means-tested. If I recall, Milwaukee was and Cleveland wasn't, but don't quote me on that.

well fair enough :D Do you have any links for either areas?

if vouchers are used but means tested, then they are effectively just a vehicle for a stealth tax which effects largely the rich - ie. regional taxes go to fund the vouchers to pay for the education of the poor, but the rich receive nothing in return - and instead have to pay for their own schooling......

[Beth]

well fair enough :D Do you have any links for either areas?

if vouchers are used but means tested, then they are effectively just a vehicle for a stealth tax which effects largely the rich - ie. regional taxes go to fund the vouchers to pay for the education of the poor, but the rich receive nothing in return - and instead have to pay for their own schooling......

Well, yes, but no more so than does our current system does.

[Meadmaker]

For links, just type in Milwaukee vouchers into a search engine. You'll get plenty, although the top of the list will be dominated by advocacy sites, mostly negative. Education is big money, and there's plenty of opportunity to upset the apple carts.

For more obscure stuff, here's a discussion of voting patterns and property values:

http://econ.ucsb.edu/~jon/Econ120/BrunnerSonstelieVoucher.pdf#search=%22milwaukee%20 vouchers%20%22property%20values%22%22


For effects of vouchers on the public schools, look for work by Caroline Hoxby on the pro side, or any advocacy group on the anti side. Hoxby's research showed that test scores at public schools went up when vouchers went it. Anti voucher groups will note the loss of funding for public schools. If there were any other negative effects, I couldn't find them.

[Meadmaker]

Here's a page of links from a pro-choice site:

http://www.heartland.org/PolicyBotTopic.cfm?artTopic=437


I learned something, glancing at the abstracts. Sweden apparently has a very active school choice program. Grundar, can you relate anything to us about Sweden's program?

ETA:

A BBC link about Sweden's program. Just a quick google.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3717744.stm

[Dustin Kesselberg]

point 1. Private schools expect their students to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege. There are parents with the disposable income and inclination to be prepared to do this. If you give everyone $10,000 to spend on schooling then this merely becomes the base level from which school fees are judged. This really is rather basic. .....

point 2. why would market pressures benefit the education of students from poor backgrounds?

point 3. New schools are hugely expensive to build. Who funds them? If they are privately funded then that cost will inevitably be passed onto students.


Point 1, all depends on a super small minority of parents who this money to blow on private schools and assumes they will keep sending their children there even when they can send them to other equal schools for free.

Point 2, This is what i've been explaining all along.

Point 3, This depends on the types of schools. Schools don't have to be built all at once firstly. Secondly, We can still have public schooling where the current public schools will still exist or new ones built where they still must compete for the students and income.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Thanks for spending the time to find sources Meadmaker.

[slingblade]

Yeah, cause Ed knows you would never bother.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yeah, cause Ed knows you would never bother.



I'm a busy man.;)

[slingblade]

I'm a busy man boy.;)

Let us know when you get some time to do your own research. After your nap, perhaps.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1956597#post1956597)
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Be surprised. It hasn't happened. However, I don't remember if Milwaukee and Cleveland were means-tested. If I recall, Milwaukee was and Cleveland wasn't, but don't quote me on that. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

well fair enough :D Do you have any links for either areas?



Gah! He told you not to quote him on it, and there you are, quoting him!;)