School Vouchers

[Supercharts]

If this point has been made before please ignore it.

Under the "GI Bill" [post WWII] vets could go to any school they wanted and get an education. Many will argue that this was one of the best things the Goverment ever did.

My question: If a "GI" could go to any school for an education [State Colleges and Universities, Yale, USC, Notre Dame, Loyola, Rabbinical school etc.] doesn't this set a precedent in the sense that a Government grant is up to those who receive it to choose for themselves what type of education they want?

Never heard a good counter-argument once this point has been made.
But I could be wrong.

[Upchurch]

[whistle] Wow, that's a pretty good one.

I don't know that much about how the GI Bill works or how it's funded, but assuming that soldiers must be in the armed forces for a certain period of time before they can use the GI Bill, you could argue that the GI Bill is an earned benefit. In other words, after a soldier works for the government for x number of years, they are "paid a bonus" of money that is placed into a special account specifically meant for their later education. It is money they have earned and money they can spend as they choose, within certain guidelines (i.e. for education only).

edited to add: My future father-in-law used the GI Bill to go to trucking school. :rolleyes: But, hey, he's happy so that's what counts.

School funding, however, is derived through public taxes. It is money that students, nor their parents really, have not earned even though, as a society, it is our duty to provide it to them. Vouchers would allow private individuals then to determine how public funds are spent. We, as tax payers, have no say in how our tax money is being used. So, it becomes a taxation without representation issue.

Now granted, I just made that up off the top of my head and it's probably a much more complicated issue than that. However, that would be a counter-argument. I don't know if its a good one.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
[whistle] Wow, that's a pretty good one.

I don't know that much about how the GI Bill works or how it's funded, but assuming that soldiers must be in the armed forces for a certain period of time before they can use the GI Bill, you could argue that the GI Bill is an earned benefit. In other words, after a soldier works for the government for x number of years, they are "paid a bonus" of money that is placed into a special account specifically meant for their later education. It is money they have earned and money they can spend as they choose, within certain guidelines (i.e. for education only).

edited to add: My future father-in-law used the GI Bill to go to trucking school. :rolleyes: But, hey, he's happy so that's what counts.

School funding, however, is derived through public taxes. It is money that students, nor their parents really, have not earned even though, as a society, it is our duty to provide it to them. Vouchers would allow private individuals then to determine how public funds are spent. We, as tax payers, have no say in how our tax money is being used. So, it becomes a taxation without representation issue.

Now granted, I just made that up off the top of my head and it's probably a much more complicated issue than that. However, that would be a counter-argument. I don't know if its a good one.

Not entirely correct, but close. Some contracts will allow you to go to school before you join the military (you have to be part of ROTC in the mean time). After you done with school you then go into whichever Armed Forces you signed up with for four years.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Not entirely correct, but close. But still, the money is either earned or given on "credit" with the promise to pay it off later in service to the country, right?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But still, the money is either earned or given on "credit" with the promise to pay it off later in service to the country, right?

Indeed. Going back to what you were talking about, I don't see how vouchers are taxation with out representation. It's the money that is already allocated for school, it's not like we are giving parents cold hard cash to do with it as they please. The only difference is, parents can now choose to send their children to a different school AND make sure that school gets the money.

[shanek]

But why not just give the parents a tax credit in that case? Why give it directly to the schools? The only reason I can think of is so strings can be attached later and the government can start dictating to the private schools what they can do, threatening to cut funding if they don't. This is exactly how it happened with higher education.

[Supercharts]

The "GI Bill" was passed on June 22, 1944.
http://www.higher-ed.org/resources/GI_bill.htm

It stipulated that if you served in the military on or after Sept. 16, 1940 you could get vocational reimbursement. It did not restrict itself to secular vocational training.

Sure - the bill has been amended many times but it hasn't been restricted to secular or government sponsored institutions.

So - to sort of restate my question - if you can earn these benefits by serving in the Military [a condition set by Congress] then why can't Congress allow school vouchers for private schools? Congress can set the condition. The SCOTUS doesn't enter into it because a precedent has been established.

Even today a recent Vet can go to Rabbinical school and the Government will help pay tuition.

My point is that unrestricited school vouchers - as proposed by George W. - is well within the law - both in terms of Congress, SCOTUS and precedent.

But I could be wrong.

:confused:

[Lurker]

Interesting point about the GI Bill. On a broader point, my problem with vouchers is they would take considerable money away from the public schools. Considerable!

Lurker

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I don't see how vouchers are taxation with out representation. It's the money that is already allocated for school,Yes, but it was allocated for a specific public school, based on my location. A school that I may or may not support and can vote weither to allocate more or less money too. I can also run to be on that school's board or I can vote for the members of that school board.

With vouchers, students and parents are allowed to take that money and put it into whatever institution they choose (again, within the restriction of education) and (1) I have no say where that money goes or (2) what is done with it once it is there.
it's not like we are giving parents cold hard cash to do with it as they please.Actually, that's precisely what we would be doing with the one limitation that it must be spent on the student's education. Otherwise, they're free to do as they like.

[Tmy]

(Govt grants and student loans are also used for private colleges. Then again govt isnt required to provide college education)

These parents dont deserve a damn thing. Theyve got some nerve. If you dont like the govt schools then dont use them, but Ill be damned if my taxes go to these people. I dont have any kids. Im the one who should be getting the tax break, not the parents of those govt service eating brats.

Why not gove vouchers to people who DONT use public transportation. They can use the money to gas up their SUV's.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek
But why not just give the parents a tax credit in that case? Why give it directly to the schools? The only reason I can think of is so strings can be attached later and the government can start dictating to the private schools what they can do, threatening to cut funding if they don't. This is exactly how it happened with higher education.

You may be right, but last thing we need is another tax code for people to be confused about.

Edited to Add:

Also, what if people do not make enough to send their children to school, a very realistic problem.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by shanek
But why not just give the parents a tax credit in that case? Why give it directly to the schools? The only reason I can think of is so strings can be attached later and the government can start dictating to the private schools what they can do, threatening to cut funding if they don't. This is exactly how it happened with higher education.

Whoa there pardner !!

While your follow up comments may be true, they don't address the heart of the matter..

The tax credit route, would deny the government their usual ' shipping and handling' charge ...

Gotta pay the light bill for all those fancy administration offices, and pay the salaries of those do-nothing administrators...

[Supercharts]

Here is one source for the current GI Bill:
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,32674-mil_status_active-1,00.html

It states there :
"If you're a full-time student enrolled in a Regionally or Nationally Accredited College or University, you can get up to $900.00 a month (current rates) to cover education benefits, including high-tech or vocational-technical programs. It all adds up to a total benefit of over $32,000 -- and these benefits are increasing every year. But don't delay in using the GI Bill -- these benefits are usually good only up to 10 years after you separate from the military."

The precedent has been established is my point.
There is nothing that says it has to be a public school

So the 1st. Amendment isn't an issue - IMO.

It's a benefit earned while serving in the Military. BUT - "how" this benefit is earned don't make a diddly bit of difference in the sense of the Government [i]paying $'s. Congress could say that if you are an American Citizen, have Children of school age, pay taxes, and reside in a really "cheeseburger" [see, I can be nice] school district, then there is no Constitutional bar to them passing a law for vouchers so you can send your kids to Sr. Mary Imaculate Conception's first grade class at St. Francis School in Bayonne, N.J.

That's my point.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes, but it was allocated for a specific public school, based on my location. A school that I may or may not support and can vote weither to allocate more or less money too. I can also run to be on that school's board or I can vote for the members of that school board.

With vouchers, students and parents are allowed to take that money and put it into whatever institution they choose (again, within the restriction of education) and (1) I have no say where that money goes or (2) what is done with it once it is there.
Actually, that's precisely what we would be doing with the one limitation that it must be spent on the student's education. Otherwise, they're free to do as they like.

You don't think Vouchers could improve the horrible inner city schools?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Here is one source for the current GI Bill:
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,32674-mil_status_active-1,00.html

It states there :
"If you're a full-time student enrolled in a Regionally or Nationally Accredited College or University, you can get up to $900.00 a month (current rates) to cover education benefits, including high-tech or vocational-technical programs. It all adds up to a total benefit of over $32,000 -- and these benefits are increasing every year. But don't delay in using the GI Bill -- these benefits are usually good only up to 10 years after you separate from the military."

The precedent has been established is my point.
There is nothing that says it has to be a public school

So the 1st. Amendment isn't an issue - IMO.

It's a benefit earned while serving in the Military. BUT - "how" this benefit is earned don't make a diddly bit of difference in the sense of the Government [i]paying $'s. Congress could say that if you are an American Citizen, have Children of school age, pay taxes, and reside in a really "cheeseburger" [see, I can be nice] school district, then there is no Constitutional bar to them passing a law for vouchers so you can send your kids to Sr. Mary Imaculate Conception's first grade class at St. Francis School in Bayonne, N.J.

That's my point.

You are a bit off on this one. It's not that Congress is paying them for school, it's that congress is paying them in the form of school money, think of it as University Vouchers.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Whoa there pardner !!

While your follow up comments may be true, they don't address the heart of the matter..

The tax credit route, would deny the government their usual ' shipping and handling' charge ...

Gotta pay the light bill for all those fancy administration offices, and pay the salaries of those do-nothing administrators...

Ah, yes, that is very true. How sloppy of me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You don't think Vouchers could improve the horrible inner city schools?

How many of those "horrible inner city schools" are private schools? How can you fix a problem with government schools by giving money to private schools?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Supercharts
It's a benefit earned while serving in the Military. BUT - "how" this benefit is earned don't make a diddly bit of difference in the sense of the Government paying $'s.

Unless the kids or their parents are government employees, I don't see how the GI Bill is at all relevant to the issue of school vouchers. That the benefit is part of the way the military pays its soldiers *is* important.

You could probably argue that a precedent has been set for a GI Bill for kids - meaning that the kids (okay, most likely it'd be their parents) are on the hook for 'x' years to the US military in exchange for the funds. These funds could be used at the primary/secondary school of your choice. :)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


How many of those "horrible inner city schools" are private schools? How can you fix a problem with government schools by giving money to private schools?

By eliminating government schools in favor of private?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
By eliminating government schools in favor of private?

Works for me, but how do vouchers achieve that?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


Works for me, but how do vouchers achieve that?

I can see the problems that might arise, as the school will probably have to jump through some hoops in order to get the voucher money. But it will most certainly be better than giving money to some over blown entity like LAUSD that goes through money faster than a college kid with a credit card, and it has almost nothing to show for it.

[Tmy]

Geez, parents are like old people. GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE. As if they dont get enough child based tax credits. At what point do you stop milking uncle sam.

The govt has to provide transportation to schools. Are you now entitled to a transportation voucher. The govt subsidizes lunch. You want a lunch voucher?? Do home schoolers get a big fat check too?

What is the point of school vouchers? To improve schools. What if your school district is performing just fine, how do you justify vouchers. What if a poor school improves to acceptable levels? Do you end the vouchers and pull Jr. back out of his private school?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You don't think Vouchers could improve the horrible inner city schools? Well:

1) I was trying to point out the differences between the GI Bill and school vouchers.

2) I was also trying to show how school vouchers would equate to taxation without representation. I admit it's something of a stretch, but I do believe it's a valid argument.

3) I think vouchers will "improve" inner city schools by forcing them to close down with the additional consequences that such occurances hold. (The city of St. Louis just closed something like 16 of the city public schools, including one just down the street from my house. Trust me, it's been a nightmare. The community out cry alone, while misguided, has been amazing.)

4) I really like making lists. :D

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well:

1) I was trying to point out the differences between the GI Bill and school vouchers.

2) I was also trying to show how school vouchers would equate to taxation without representation. I admit it's something of a stretch, but I do believe it's a valid argument.

3) I think vouchers will "improve" inner city schools by forcing them to close down with the additional consequences that such occurances hold. (The city of St. Louis just closed something like 16 of the city public schools, including one just down the street from my house. Trust me, it's been a nightmare. The community out cry alone, while misguided, has been amazing.)

4) I really like making lists. :D

The idea is that private schools will open up because.... Well this is just too good of a business opportunity to pass up.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The idea is that private schools will open up because.... Well this is just too good of a business opportunity to pass up.

Assuming you're talking about inner-city schools and schools in poor rural areas, why would private schools want to open up there? People won't have the money to pay for the education. If you're take a "private" school and fund it solely by vouchers / tax money, aren't you just creating a public school with board members you can't unelect?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The idea is that private schools will open up because.... Well this is just too good of a business opportunity to pass up. Well, at the risk of pulling a Helen Lovejoy, is what is good for business good for the education of the kids? And how do we assure that?

Edited to add: The Chemist has a good point in the previous post, as well.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by shanek


How many of those "horrible inner city schools" are private schools? How can you fix a problem with government schools by giving money to private schools?

And even if no students transferred from one of these horrible public schools to a private school you would be reducing the budget of the public schools. Thus, they have even less money to educate their students.

Lurker

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Lurker


And even if no students transferred from one of these horrible public schools to a private school you would be reducing the budget of the public schools. Thus, they have even less money to educate their students. Which, as we've seen in STL, would probably end up in the closing of multiple public schools resulting in consulidated school districts, which means longer bus rides, etc.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Assuming you're talking about inner-city schools and schools in poor rural areas, why would private schools want to open up there? People won't have the money to pay for the education. If you're take a "private" school and fund it solely by vouchers / tax money, aren't you just creating a public school with board members you can't unelect?

I am talking about vouchers, and they way you "unelect" someone in the voucher system is take your voucher to a different school.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Lurker


And even if no students transferred from one of these horrible public schools to a private school you would be reducing the budget of the public schools. Thus, they have even less money to educate their students.

Lurker

Except of course the vouchers those students will bring to the school.

[Supercharts]

I still have not heard a good argument.
Why should the Tax Payers support a Public school?

And... why can't parents decide for themselves how their children should be schooled?

It's, IMO, this:

Congress can make the Rules.
If I want to send my child to a "public" (ie. supported by taxes) school OR to a private school who cares?

The GI BILL implys that Congress can do anything they want. The GI BILL has set a precedent. SCOTUS has never said a word about it.

Think about it.

I can school my children at home. No one gives a "cheeseburger" about it. Pass MCAS and you are in.

Capiche?

PS: Hal? I need another vectdive than "Cheeseburger". Please work on it. Thanks.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I am talking about vouchers, and they way you "unelect" someone in the voucher system is take your voucher to a different school.

I'm aware of the "vote with your feet" approach. I just doubt that in poor areas there will be anywhere for these people dissatisfied with their schools to go.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Lurker
And even if no students transferred from one of these horrible public schools to a private school you would be reducing the budget of the public schools. Thus, they have even less money to educate their students.



Originally posted by Grammatron


Except of course the vouchers those students will bring to the school.

Currently, the public schools are funded by tax dollars regardless of whether the child attends or not. Let us say, for argument, that right now 10% of children attend private schools.

With vouchers, with no students transferring, publich schools would get a 10% reduction in their budgets right away as those who have always been in private schools would put their voucher money in their private school.

So, to allow vouchers means you will immediately cut budgets for public schools. Something to consider.

Lurker

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Supercharts
I still have not heard a good argument.
Why should the Tax Payers support a Public school?



On that note, why should taxpayers support public roads?


And... why can't parents decide for themselves how their children should be schooled?


They can. Like you say, you can school your children at home.

It's just that it's in the country's best interests to have those that can vote at least minimally educated. Hence, public schools.


The GI BILL implys that Congress can do anything they want. The GI BILL has set a precedent. SCOTUS has never said a word about it.

Think about it.


I still don't see how it's relevant. The GI Bill can be seen as one of the ways the military pays its soldiers (i.e. its employees). I think you'd be better off looking at grant programs (Pell, etc.) and trying to make your point off of those.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Supercharts
And... why can't parents decide for themselves how their children should be schooled?Turn it around. Why should certain private, unelected individuals have absolute say on what is done with public money? That gives more political power to citizens with children than to those without.
The GI BILL implys that Congress can do anything they want. The GI BILL has set a precedent. SCOTUS has never said a word about it.As I said, the difference is that the GI BILL is an benefit that soldiers earn. School vouchers are unearned public money that a class of society (i.e. the childless) has no say in what happens to it.

Further, there will be situations where those with more children, but who pay less taxes, have control of a greater amount of the funs than someone with fewer children but who pay more taxes.
Think about it.likewise.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lurker
So, to allow vouchers means you will immediately cut budgets for public schools. Something to consider.

Which may be a good thing. If government schools everywhere are like the ones around here, they need something to force them to spend money efficiently.

[karl]

Originally posted by Upchurch
2) I was also trying to show how school vouchers would equate to taxation without representation. I admit it's something of a stretch, but I do believe it's a valid argument.

My personal objection to that argument would be that you'll get taxation without representation anyway. When a public school buys even a packet of pencils, tax money goes to a private corporation that you have no control over.

If it's OK for a city or region to buy, for example, office supplies from a private company, why can't they buy education?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
It's just that it's in the country's best interests to have those that can vote at least minimally educated.

Educated, or indoctrinated? Most of the problems and misconceptions about liberty and the Constitution and Federalism, in my experience, come about because people are just plain being taught the wrong things in government schools...and they just happens to be the things that cause people to accept an intrusive Federal government.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Which may be a good thing. If government schools everywhere are like the ones around here, they need something to force them to spend money efficiently.

Can you make the claim that a private company in the same situation would spend the money any more efficiently than the public school? It's NOT self-evident.

For example, public schools have open-door policies and cannot refuse to admit costly special needs students. Most of the private schools I've dealt with simply don't admit these people for one reason or another. This lowers cost-per-student considerably at the private schools.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by karl
My personal objection to that argument would be that you'll get taxation without representation anyway. When a public school buys even a packet of pencils, tax money goes to a private corporation that you have no control over.Yes, no one has control of the microscopic level. That's why we elect school boards and hire administrators. Note, I said "we elect". While I have no (nor would I want) direct control over what packet of pencils the school buys, I do have control over who makes the decision (i.e. the administrator who is hired by the elected school board). That control and accountability goes away when that money is given to a private school. Private schools are only accountable to the parents who bring the public money to them. They are not accountable to the general public that provides the public money.
If it's OK for a city or region to buy, for example, office supplies from a private company, why can't they buy education? The difference is, when the city buys office supplies, they are still held acountable for what happens to those supplies. When cities provide money to a specific class of citizens to use at their descression, there is no accountability to the city itself.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Educated, or indoctrinated?


When did this become the conspiracy theory board? :)

Most of the problems and misconceptions about liberty and the Constitution and Federalism, in my experience, come about because people are just plain being taught the wrong things in government schools...and they just happens to be the things that cause people to accept an intrusive Federal government.

Such as?

And as for private schools being ANY better in the "indoctrination" side of things, check out

Education or indoctrination? (http://www.aacs.org/about/welcome.aspx)


The Christian school's purpose is to guide children to academic maturity and to seek to conform their minds to the image of Christ.


Hmm...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
Can you make the claim that a private company in the same situation would spend the money any more efficiently than the public school?

I wasn't making that point in my reply, but I can if you want.

The problem with the public schools around here at least is that they can always go to the County Commissioners whining for more money, and the Commissioners (who are all Republicans, BTW) will just fork over the dough because none of them wants to be seen as being against education or against children. Even though they just built two new high schools using the most lavish construction. 3-story entrance foyers with tile covering the walls and floor, auditoriums and presentation rooms with expensive wiring and presentation equipment, two stadiums apiece, etc., and afterwards they went back whining to the Commissioners because they didn't have money for textbooks.

Private companies have to prioritize funding because they can't just up and grab more money whenever they want to. They have to actually persuade people to spend their money on them, in the form of either tuition or donations. And since these are the people who actually worked to earn the money, as opposed to just taxing people and spending money that isn't theirs, they're going to want to make sure their money is going towards the right things.

I don't know of any private schools that are short on textbooks. And I don't know of any private schools with lavish, overblown construction. Even the local charter schools are way above the government schools in this regard: all classes are fully equipped, students have enough textbooks and other supplies, and no one has to go whining to anyone for money.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That control and accountability goes away when that money is given to a private school. Private schools are only accountable to the parents who bring the public money to them. They are not accountable to the general public that provides the public money.

This is a good point, and another good argument for tax credits instead of vouchers.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
Such as?

Go to several government educated people and ask them if they have rights that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Then ask them if the government can perform functions that aren't in the Constitution. Their responses should tell you all that you need to know.

As Tim Slagle pointed out, our children are being taught by the few people who don't think we pay enough in taxes.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Go to several government educated people and ask them if they have rights that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Then ask them if the government can perform functions that aren't in the Constitution. Their responses should tell you all that you need to know.


My money's on you not noticing much difference in the responses of private and public school graduates.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


My money's on you not noticing much difference in the responses of private and public school graduates.

Agreed. I don't see why a private education _necessarily_ indicates a 'better' one.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Even though they just built two new high schools using the most lavish construction. 3-story entrance foyers with tile covering the walls and floor, auditoriums and presentation rooms with expensive wiring and presentation equipment, two stadiums apiece, etc., and afterwards they went back whining to the Commissioners because they didn't have money for textbooks.

Oh come now - you're lambasting the schools for actually having a quality building built instead of the trailers that have been the staple at public schools for the past twenty years?

The real problem you might be seeing is not simply that government's providing the money - it's that the money is often earmerked for certain purposes (e.g. the building) and can't be spent for other things. That's something to take up with the state legislature.

Now since you're supposed to be saying how frugal private industry is compared to the public sector, I suppose you're now going to tell me that the private sector does NOT build buildings with fancy entryways -or that private schools don't build stadiums and fieldhouses for their own sports teams.

The "expensive wiring and presentation equipment" is necessary to modern education. Newer schools are teaching kids to use computers, the Internet, and (g*d help us all) things like Powerpoint.


I don't know of any private schools that are short on textbooks. And I don't know of any private schools with lavish, overblown construction.


I guess I'd have to see the buildings in question to see if they're "lavish", but in my area, the public school buildings are falling apart. The local megachurch's school is the most "lavish" building in town. The public school buildings are much as they were 20 years ago - with the addition of some trailers out back.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
My money's on you not noticing much difference in the responses of private and public school graduates. \

In my experience, the private school graduates tend to be much better educated on the Constitution. That's nothing scientific, which is why I told you to try it for yourself.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
Oh come now - you're lambasting the schools for actually having a quality building built instead of the trailers that have been the staple at public schools for the past twenty years?

I went around asking every teacher I could find: Would you rather teach in a nice, lavish building with not enough textbooks and other supplies, or would you rather teach in a run-down trailer but with plenty of books and supplies? None of them even hesitated before choosing the latter.

The real problem you might be seeing is not simply that government's providing the money - it's that the money is often earmerked for certain purposes (e.g. the building) and can't be spent for other things. That's something to take up with the state legislature.

No, here, at least, that's all up to the county school planning board.

Now since you're supposed to be saying how frugal private industry is compared to the public sector, I suppose you're now going to tell me that the private sector does NOT build buildings with fancy entryways -or that private schools don't build stadiums and fieldhouses for their own sports teams.

Not when they're short on toilet paper they don't.

The "expensive wiring and presentation equipment" is necessary to modern education. Newer schools are teaching kids to use computers, the Internet, and (g*d help us all) things like Powerpoint.

Our local charter school seems to have found a way to do that just fine with much more modest construction.

[Grammatron]

Found this interesting site that lists advantages and disadvantages of private schools. The most interesting facts that I found was that private school cost nearly half that of public per student but the students score higher in private schools.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Found this interesting site that lists advantages and disadvantages of private schools. The most interesting facts that I found was that private school cost nearly half that of public per student but the students score higher in private schools.

Amazing, isn't it? Also, notice that the Roman Catholic schools were doing worse than their other private school counterparts, but were still better than government schools.

[karl]

Originally posted by Upchurch

The difference is, when the city buys office supplies, they are still held acountable for what happens to those supplies. When cities provide money to a specific class of citizens to use at their descression, there is no accountability to the city itself.

You do realize that your principle also means you can't hand out welfare checks unless you get to elect the board members of each recipient family? ;) But maybe that would be a good thing.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Found this interesting site that lists advantages and disadvantages of private schools. The most interesting facts that I found was that private school cost nearly half that of public per student but the students score higher in private schools.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm

I think you're pointing out the major difference between the kinds of kids from the kinds of backgrounds that are put in private school versus the ones who are in public school.

I can sum up the difference in two words: self-selecting.


Next you'll show a study that shows that football players who went to Notre Dame are better than the football players who went to Cal-State Fullerton.

They must teach better football!


Put kids from the same households, half in public school and half in private school, at random. And do that across all socio-economic lines. See how they do on test scores. If you can even GET private schools to admit the poor achievers, or the behavior-problem ones, or the non-english speakers.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Silicon


I think you're pointing out the major difference between the kinds of kids from the kinds of backgrounds that are put in private school versus the ones who are in public school.

I can sum up the difference in two words: self-selecting.


Next you'll show a study that shows that football players who went to Notre Dame are better than the football players who went to Cal-State Fullerton.

They must teach better football!


Put kids from the same households, half in public school and half in private school, at random. And do that across all socio-economic lines. See how they do on test scores. If you can even GET private schools to admit the poor achievers, or the behavior-problem ones, or the non-english speakers.

The way Notre Dame played last year Fullerton might have actually beat them.

Anyway, back to the topic. I don't know where you are getting that only poor kids go to public school and only rich kids are going to private but I would like to see those statistics.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Put kids from the same households, half in public school and half in private school, at random. And do that across all socio-economic lines. See how they do on test scores. If you can even GET private schools to admit the poor achievers, or the behavior-problem ones, or the non-english speakers.

Notice that the link talks about "non-elite" private schools. Those are ones with no minimum admissions standard.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by karl
You do realize that your principle also means you can't hand out welfare checks unless you get to elect the board members of each recipient family? ;) But maybe that would be a good thing. well.... yes, I guess that's what it would mean, carried to it's logical extreme. It's the difference between welfare and social security. The latter is earned and the former isn't.

Regardless, it doesn't prove my point incorrect.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Grammatron

I don't know where you are getting that only poor kids go to public school and only rich kids are going to private but I would like to see those statistics.

Point out where I said that, and I'll be happy to prove it.

I said that the people who go to private school are self-selecting. I did not say by wealth, and I certainly did not say that "only the poor go to public school and only the rich go to private school".

Can I creatively quote you now?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Grammatron
http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm

From the article...

Private schools cost less per student on average, yet, performance on standardized tests is higher in private schools than in public schools, although average differences may be in part related to socioeconomic and home factors.

If these numbers are not adjusted for socioeconomic factors, then they're simply not fair comparisons. Also, since a parent has to take action to enroll their child in a private school, you'd expect those parents to be more involved in their student's education and helping the student excel.

Plus, I'd take issue with the cost savings the article proposes. There's no mention of the relative numbers of special needs students at the private and public schools.

We must compare apples and apples here. :)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


Notice that the link talks about "non-elite" private schools. Those are ones with no minimum admissions standard.

No standard? None?

Are they required by law to take all children, no matter how many they can fit in their classrooms?

No matter if the children have severe learning disabilities?

No matter if children have chronic behavioral problems, they can't be kicked out?

No matter if the population requires they teach english with a baseline of zero to people with 40 different languages?

I'd sure love to see that private school.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Notice that the link talks about "non-elite" private schools. Those are ones with no minimum admissions standard.

Where does it say that in the article?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Silicon


No standard? None?



He's making that up, I think. :)

In my youth, I attended several "non-elite" private schools. Every single one of 'em had admissions standards. They often have a "no discrimination" policy for race, but you've still got to take an admissions test.

I think self-selection bias and socioeconomic differences probably account for much of the "success" of the private schools. Small class sizes and better/newer facilities probably also account for some of it.

What, to me, is shocking about the site linked above is that 44% of "elite" private schooled 12th graders aren't able to read proficiently.

[Silicon]

I was shocked that private schools only produced a 5% more likely chance of graduating high school. What a waste of money.

I'll send my kid to public school, and spend the money for private school on a tutor instead. Or suppliment her teaching myself, from my collected college books.

Of course a child with parents active in her education like me is self-selecting! Her likeliness of dropping out of high-school is 0%! Her likeliness of reading below grade average is 0%!

I can do better than a private school's measily 5% average.

[DavidJames]

"Of course a child with parents active in her education like me is self-selecting! Her likeliness of dropping out of high-school is 0%! Her likeliness of reading below grade average is 0%!

I can do better than a private school's measily 5% average."

Well said!

I believe parents can play a huge role in the success of their child in school. Sending a child to a private school requires a commitment by the parents, at the very least a financial one. That alone indicates they recognize the value of school and believe paying the extra money will result in a better education. That suggests the parents give a damn and most likely will play a role in helping the child be successful. Those kids have an advantage right off the bat. I'd say they have better odds of being successful students that those that go though school with a family environment that doesn't care or value education. That, among other things, stacks the deck in favor of many private schools and I also would expect the 5% number to be much higher.

[GroundStrength]

Originally posted by Lurker
Interesting point about the GI Bill. On a broader point, my problem with vouchers is they would take considerable money away from the public schools. Considerable!

Lurker

Actually, none of the plans that I have seen (proposed by the democrats of republicans) allow the student to take the entire amount allocated to the public school with them when they choose to go to a private school. Therefore, if the $/student were (hypothetically) $5,000 and they were allowed to take 2/3 or $3,333.33 with them in the form of a voucher...that still leaves $1,666.66 with the public school. The student is not there and the school does not have to spend the money on them any longer. Hey, even if all of the students took the vouchers and left the school would still have money to do absolutely nothing.


Okay, let me have it now :)

Edited for horrible spelling, damn public schools :mad:

[Silicon]

Groundstrength,

You can't use an average price-per-student unless the children who would be leaving the public schools would be exactly average over the entire student body.

So, say a developmentally disabled (retarded) child might cost 20,000 a year to teach, and the family can't afford a private school to take them.

So you probably lose the kids that are the least expensive to teach (high achievement, low behavioral problems, no special needs, mastery of spoken English) and you keep the kids that are the most expensive.

Do you siphon enough of the easyier to teach kids so that you save enough to pay for the costly ones?

That's a math problem that's much harder to do. And if you do it wrong, it becomes an expensive mistake.

For only 5% benefit for the students whose parents take that initiative, that's an expensive risk.

[GroundStrength]

Silicon,

Yes, I agree that my statement does not take into consideration 'special' cases, but far too many children are designated as special when they might not actually be.

The school that my children attend tries to convince me that both of my children are special needs, even though they are both A/B grade students. They continually try get get them classified as
ADD/ADHD. Perhaps they are (man, it seems like it at home sometimes) but it does not effect their actual grades or conduct grades. I assume that this is a ploy for more money for the school.

I must add the school does a great job at teaching the children.

[Tmy]

Y know what school vouchers is really about? Its about a group of people trying clever ways to get the governemt to pay for things they dont want to pay for themselves.

Its just more fleecing of the government till.


ps. Our public schools are much better than people let on. No one wants to say that cause all sides want this perception of failing schools so they (school board, teacher unions, voucher advocates) can beg for more money as a "fix" to the probem.

[GroundStrength]

Originally posted by Tmy
Y know what school vouchers is really about? Its about a group of people trying clever ways to get the governemt to pay for things they dont want to pay for themselves.

Its just more fleecing of the government till.


ps. Our public schools are much better than people let on. No one wants to say that cause all sides want this perception of failing schools so they (school board, teacher unions, voucher advocates) can beg for more money as a "fix" to the probem.

Its not the goverment's money to begin with.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by GroundStrength


Its not the goverment's money to begin with.

Well it sure aint the private schools money.

[GroundStrength]

No but it is the parents money.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well it sure aint the private schools money.

It's the parents' money. Let 'em spend it on private school if they want. If they opt out of the system, that's one less child the system has to pay for, so it's only fair. It makes no sense to force them to pay for school twice.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


It's the parents' money. Let 'em spend it on private school if they want. If they opt out of the system, that's one less child the system has to pay for, so it's only fair. It makes no sense to force them to pay for school twice.



Its not the parents money. Its my money, and Im not a parent. So why should MY money go to BOTH a public school and a private school. Howz that for fairness? Do parents not have enough tax breaks already???

Schools are one of the few govt arms that the locals have great control over. If they f-up the schools, then its up to them to fix it. Not just jump ship and run off wh everyones tax money like its some entitlement.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its not the parents money. Its my money, and Im not a parent. So why should MY money go to BOTH a public school and a private school. Howz that for fairness?

It wouldn't be, under my plan. The parents would get THEIR taxes back when they educate their child outside the government schools.

You do raise a good point, though: the government schools are paid for by those without kids as well. So it's not the case that if 5% of students are put in private schools that the government schools will have 5% less money, because they don't represent 5% of the people paying into it.

[Tmy]

How much $$ does each child represent?? If the school has one less that doesnt mean they are going to save $5000 (the "cost" per child). There are so many sunk costs etc... that the schools savings is quite minimal. So these vouchers amounts should really be a fraction of the schools cost per student.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


It wouldn't be, under my plan. The parents would get THEIR taxes back when they educate their child outside the government schools.


Wow, if I hire a security guard, can I get back the taxes I paid for the police?

If I put a top-notch fire supression system in my home, can I stop paying for the fire department?

If I have a back yard, can I stop paying for parkland?

If I buy my own books, can we please tear down the public library?


Shout "Socialism!" all you want. There are just some things that only work when the entire society contributes.

Paying for school isn't a gift that government bestows on your child. You cannot monetize it, and spend it at will.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Wow, if I hire a security guard, can I get back the taxes I paid for the police?

No, but I think neighborhoods that run a community watch program and as a result have their crime drop, say, 30% should get a 30% cut on that portion of their taxes. That's what Libertarian Mayor Art Olivier did in Bellflower, CA and it worked wonderfully.

If I put a top-notch fire supression system in my home, can I stop paying for the fire department?

There are places in Arkansas and elsewhere where you pay the FD directly, like a power bill, and that gives you kind of like insurance so they'll come out and put out a fire if you have one. If you haven't paid, they'll just put out the fire and send you a bill.

There are alternatives to all of these, and the small-mindedness of your post just shows the reluctance of some people to even consider them.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by shanek


It wouldn't be, under my plan. The parents would get THEIR taxes back when they educate their child outside the government schools.I don't have children and yet I pay the same amount of income tax as some one with children would who earns my same level of pay, more actually since I don't have dependants to deduct. Can I get my taxes back to pay for me to go back to, say, grad school?

The notion that parents get their money back is rediculous.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't have children and yet I pay the same amount of income tax as some one with children would who earns my same level of pay, more actually since I don't have dependants to deduct. Can I get my taxes back to pay for me to go back to, say, grad school?

Works for me.

The notion that parents get their money back is rediculous.

Why?

[Upchurch]

What? So, no public schools, period? Brilliant.

[Tmy]

Lets say you start up this voucher thing. How do you figure out the amount of money that the parents get?? Its not like their taxes are broken down into specific amounts that go to education, police, fire, the EPA, NASA, etc.....

How do you come up with a "fair" amount that reflects their monetary input.

[Upchurch]

hm... and even if you could figure out how much is going specifically to schools, do I get to not pay that amount, since I don't have kids? After all, aren't I paying to educate other people's kids?

Or maybe we're all pitching in to educate all of our country's kids to at least a certain level, since literacy and basic skills like math are the key to a successful civilization.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Or maybe we're all pitching in to educate all of our country's kids to at least a certain level, since literacy and basic skills like math are the key to a successful civilization.

And we're now back to why we have a public education system in the first place, and why all of us pay taxes to support it - even if we ourselves don't currently have kids enrolled in it.

After all, these kids are going to be voters. It's nice that most of them are at least able to read - even if they can't afford a private school.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

After all, these kids are going to be voters. It's nice that most of them are at least able to read - even if they can't afford a private school. Agreed. Does the voucher offer enough money to afford any private school that the student is scholastically qualified to attend or does it require additional money over and above the vouchers, thus still keeping children of poor families out?

If it does, then they'd be forced to attand a public school with drastically less funding then they have now, right?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What? So, no public schools, period? Brilliant.

No government schools. There's a difference.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Or maybe we're all pitching in to educate all of our country's kids to at least a certain level, since literacy and basic skills like math are the key to a successful civilization.

I posted a graph here awhile back showing illiteracy rates plummeting like a brick before there was any state or Federal taxpayer funding of schools, which didn't start up until the 1940s-'50s in the case of the states, and the '60s in the case of the Feds.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek

No government schools.

Why stop there, shanek?! You're one word away from perfection.

"No Government!"

After all, isn't that the libertarian nirvana?

Isn't that your primary objection to the schools? Not that they are schools, but that they require a government to run them?

It seems to be your primary objection to everything you object to, at least in your postings on this site. At the very least it's your solution to every problem.

[shanek]

I couldn't locate the graph I did on literacy rates, so I made it again. The red line is the total rate of illiteracy of those above age 14. Since the black population would have started out at a great disadvantage here, since few slaves learned to read and write compared to the white population, the green line is the rate for whites only. Note that it was going down quite nicely until the 1940's, which is when the government started interfering in education. Before then, for both whites and blacks the illiteracy rate is plunging quite nicely. Note that afterwards the illiteracy rate for both groups actually jumps back up before going back down again.

At any rate, this graph shows that there isn't really any indication that illiteracy would be any worse under the previous, non-governmental education system.

The sources for the data in this graph are Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 and Ancestry and Language in the United States: November 1979.

[shanek]

Sorry...there was a problem attaching the graph. Here it is:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Why stop there, shanek?! You're one word away from perfection.

"No Government!"

After all, isn't that the libertarian nirvana?

No, it isn't. Libertarianism ≠ anarchy. I don't know where people are getting this idea, and I don't know how many times I'm going to have to sit here and refute it...especially to the same people over and over again!

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


I posted a graph here awhile back showing illiteracy rates plummeting like a brick before there was any state or Federal taxpayer funding of schools, which didn't start up until the 1940s-'50s in the case of the states, and the '60s in the case of the Feds.

I looked up the data. It shows no such thing.

Illiteracy was plummetting, and it continues to plummet, ever since 1867, when Congress created the Department of Education, and they started to track literacy.

Now skanek, I don't know where you source your chart, but what you're really seeing in the numbers is a difference in the definition of literacy. The new standard is "functional literacy", which wasn't measured pre-1979.

That's why you see a jump on the numbers. It's a different standard of the test. Nobody tests the level of rudimentary literacy they tested in the past centuries. I'd say we have nearly 100% literacy by those standards, which were about the level of reading "The Cat in the Hat." Current tests require readers to read a dense piece of prose from a newspaper article, and be able to find facts and ascertain concepts, not just identify words.

BY NO MEANS do we have the level of illiteracy that America had in 1870, or even the 30's or 40's.


http://nces.ed.gov/naal/historicaldata/illiteracy.asp


EDIT:

Oh, now I see your graph, you're talking about a jump right around !!!! THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!

It actually starts 14 years after the great depression, and ends 14 years after the end of the great depression. Amazing coincidence that the survey is of people over age 14? I think not.



Here's a bulletin for you: Lots of kids weren't going to school during the great depression. They were working.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
I looked up the data. It shows no such thing.

Explain the graph, then.

Illiteracy was plummetting, and it continues to plummet, ever since 1867, when Congress created the Department of Education, and they started to track literacy.

This is misleading. The current US Department of Education wasn't formed until 1979. The "Department of Education" that was formed in 1867 was quickly demoted to the "Office of Education" in 1868. It did little more than collect statistics (like illiteracy) and very quickly became inactive.

Now skanek, I don't know where you source your chart,

I told you:

The sources for the data in this graph are Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 and Ancestry and Language in the United States: November 1979.

but what you're really seeing in the numbers is a difference in the definition of literacy. The new standard is "functional literacy", which wasn't measured pre-1979.

And that is the last year for which there is data in the graph. Hence, there is no difference in the definition among the numbers provided.

That's why you see a jump on the numbers.

The jump in the numbers happened in the 1940s!

BY NO MEANS do we have the level of illiteracy that America had in 1870, or even the 30's or 40's.

When did I say we did? Are you deliberately trying to confuse people?

A strong downward trend in the decline of illiteracy rates was lessened in the 1940s as government became involved in education...as the graph clearly shows. There was no change in the definition of illiteracy during that time.

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/historicaldata/illiteracy.asp

Funny...the data here supports my graph, and is taken from the same sources!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Oh, now I see your graph, you're talking about a jump right around !!!! THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!

No, after the GD! After WWII, actually.

It actually starts 14 years after the great depression, and ends 14 years after the end of the great depression. Amazing coincidence that the survey is of people over age 14? I think not.

Here's a bulletin for you: Lots of kids weren't going to school during the great depression. They were working.

Look at the graph again. This jump continues on into the 1960's, which would entail people born after WWII! The jump continues for much longer than the GD did.

[Silicon]

Two things, Shanek,

How are you looking at this jump? What's your definition of the end of the jump?

My definition of the end of the jump is when it starts going back down. As I read your chart, that's around 1950, not continuing into the 1960's, although the whites only number does seem to go further (I picture a wave of post WWII European immigrants).

You say the jump continues for longer than the GD did. I see the jump starting at 1940, and going until about 1950, then literacy coming back.

So I see this jump lasting 10 years, starting in 1940.

Now the Great Depression was from 1929 to 1939. But this survey only looks at people who are over 14 years old. It takes some time before the people who didn't get any schooling during the depression to turn 14 years old. It takes about 10 years.

So 1929 + 10 years = 1939 -- approx. start of jump
and 1939 + 10 years = 1949 -- approx. end of jump


Now in your worldview, this jump corresponds with the entry of the US government into public education.

But (as you might throw back at me during a Second Amendment debate) corrolation does not prove causation(lots of guns in US vs. lots of gun crime in US).

Isn't it possible that you have Cause and Effect reversed?

Isn't it possible that the increased government focus on education is not the CAUSE of the rise in illiteracy, but that they were both caused by the same thing, namely the depression? The New Deal, bankrupt local governments, etc.


To me, I don't think it's at all surprising that we have a large number of illiterate 14-year-olds entering the census roles 10 years after the start of Great Depression.


Also, how free is that chart of yours from other factors, such as mass immigration, the varying birth-rate, etc?

There's the potential for a lot of statistical noise there, between the Great Depression, WWII, and the Baby Boom.


Now let's get back to your point. You say that goverment involvement is the cause?

Can you prove that?

This bobble on the chart is statistical noise caused by differing reporting methods and some VERY VERY extreme social upheavals. In fact, the most extreme social upheavals in living memory.

It seems ludicrious to me that you can draw the conclusion of government involvement as the cause of the decline from this data.

This chart proves nothing except your desire to believe anything that confirms your theories.

[Silicon]

BTW, Shanek,

You would do better to look at the source of that data, rather than your graph.

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/historicaldata/illiteracy.asp


For example,






The data in this table for the years 1870 to 1930 come from direct questions from
the decennial censuses of 1870 to 1930, and are therefore self-reported results.
The data for 1947, 1952, 1959, 1969, and 1979 were obtained from sample surveys;
they exclude the Armed Forces and inmates of institutions. The statistics for the
census years 1940 and 1950 were derived by estimating procedures.





Lots of differing methods. More noise.



Shannek said:
Hence, there is no difference in the definition among the numbers provided.

Guess not. I count 3 different methods.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
How are you looking at this jump? What's your definition of the end of the jump?

My definition of the end of the jump is when it starts going back down.

Why is that a rational definition? Shouldn't it at the very least be when it goes down below the rate that it was when it began?

Probably the best definition is when it goes back down to where it would have been if the previous trend had continued...which, looking at the graph, would have to be 1980, if even that.

This chart proves nothing except your desire to believe anything that confirms your theories.

Uh-huh. What the chart proves, and proves beyong any reasonable doubt, is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER to think that literacy rates would be any worse under a completely private educaitonal system than they are now. NONE of your "rebuttals"—NONE OF THEM—refuted that point.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


Uh-huh. What the chart proves, and proves beyong any reasonable doubt, is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER to think that literacy rates would be any worse under a completely private educaitonal system than they are now. NONE of your "rebuttals"—NONE OF THEM—refuted that point.


Nothing to refute. You haven't proven your case.


YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.

Prove that public education caused that jump.


Prove that it wasn't the Great Depression, WWII, the Baby Boom, mass immigration.

Prove that a non-govermental education system would have handled those eras of American history better than our public schools did.


I'm not entirely sure that bump even exists, because of the 3 different reporting methods involved.

Shanek, statistics just aren't your forte.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.

NO I DIDN'T!!!!!

The original claim, which I was using the graph to refute, was Upchurch's:

Or maybe we're all pitching in to educate all of our country's kids to at least a certain level, since literacy and basic skills like math are the key to a successful civilization.

As the graph CLEARLY SHOWS, there is NO REASONABLE BASIS to believe that we'd be any less literate with private schools!

Period! End of statement, end of refutation!

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


NO I DIDN'T!!!!!

The original claim, which I was using the graph to refute, was Upchurch's:



As the graph CLEARLY SHOWS, there is NO REASONABLE BASIS to believe that we'd be any less literate with private schools!

Period! End of statement, end of refutation!

Total BS.


Upchurch said that literacy and math are key to a sucessful society, and thus the need for society to spend money on it.

How do you dispute that claim with a chart that doesn't even talk about a successful society?


He didn't make any claim on the change in literacy rates, or historical data. All he said was WHY it is a GOAL.


YOU however, made a claim that said that your homemade chart proved that lower literacy rates were caused by government intervention in education. It proves no such thing.

Prove CAUSE. Don't prove corrolation. Prove CAUSE.


Why do you refuse to prove that the Government caused the rise in illiteracy?

Is it because you can't?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
How do you dispute that claim with a chart that doesn't even talk about a successful society?

It talks about literacy, which was one of his criteria.

And if you read the context of his post, you'll see he was most definitely talking about the need for government education.

Why do you refuse to prove that the Government caused the rise in illiteracy?

Is it because you can't?

No, it's because I don't claim that. Duh.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
A strong downward trend in the decline of illiteracy rates was lessened in the 1940s as government became involved in education


Literacy asymptotically approaches zero in this data. I don't see a "strong downward trend" lessened around 1940. There's just a blip in the data around 1950. The source also says that a different data-gathering technique was used around then. By the way, who says that the drop in literacy over time should be linear?

I think your curve fit is showing you something that's not in the data.

Oh, and given the sort of literacy measured by that data, it's probably useless for determining the quality of education kids were getting before 1979. Most schools these days are trying to raise functional literacy - for which we don't have data going back that far.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
By the way, who says that the drop in literacy over time should be linear?

Not me.

But the point—which remains unrefuted—is that there is no reasonable basis for believing that government education improved literacy in any way above what private education would have done.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Not me.

But the point—which remains unrefuted—is that there is no reasonable basis for believing that government education improved literacy in any way above what private education would have done.

It is quite obvious that without government funded-schooling, schooling that may not espouse religion, we might well be living in a theocracy, rather than a semi-republic and partial democracy.

The members of the Inquisition were quite literate.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


Not me.

But the point—which remains unrefuted—is that there is no reasonable basis for believing that government education improved literacy in any way above what private education would have done.

BZZZZZT!!!

STRAW MAN.



Just because your homemade chart doesn't show it, doesn't mean there isn't a case to be made.


There may be plenty of reasonble bases for believing that government education has improved literacy. There's more data out there than just your chart.

A chart which says more about what you don't know about statistics than anything else.

Can we chart Shanek's statistical illiteracy?


I'm especially fascinated by the fact that you chose not to post all those disclaimers about how the data was collected using 3 different methods. An honest chart wouldn't require hiding that information, Shanek.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
It is quite obvious that without government funded-schooling, schooling that may not espouse religion, we might well be living in a theocracy, rather than a semi-republic and partial democracy.

Bull. There are numerous secular private schools.

The members of the Inquisition were quite literate.

Yes, and they were also the government. Your point?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
BZZZZZT!!!

STRAW MAN.

No, it isn't. It was a direct refutation of the claim. You've tried to wriggle out of it several ways now, but none of these constitutes a refutation of the point.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek


Bull. There are numerous secular private schools.




From a previous article linked in this thread:



Approximately 55 percent of private school enrollment was in Roman Catholic schools, 31 percent was in other religious schools, and 14 percent was in non-sectarian schools



So, they're not that numerous.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it isn't. It was a direct refutation of the claim. You've tried to wriggle out of it several ways now, but none of these constitutes a refutation of the point.


So prove there's no reasonable basis for believing that government education improved literacy in any way above what private education would have done.


YOU "proved" only that your chart doesn't show it. Your chart was only showing one thing, measured 3 different ways.

"PROVE" that there's NO evidence out there (no reasonable basis) to show that government improved literacy better than private education could have.

See how you're trying to prove a negative?

All your graph (to you, though your methods are very suspect) did is fail to show a positive. It does not prove a negative.




BTW, Shanek, are you STILL denying that that jump in your chart is probably caused by the Great Depression, other social upheavals, or differences in data-gathering methods?

And of course, you didn't cross-multiply those numbers against public-school enrollment figures, did you. Or against the number of adults alive who had attended american public school. So those fluctuations aren't checked against things like waves of immigration, large casualties of the younger population (WWII), the Great Depression, etc.


Oh, and I must have missed it, tell us again why you neglected to report in your graph that the illiteracy data was gathered 3 different ways?



Figures lie, and liars figure, I guess.

[Silicon]

WAIT SHANEK!!!


I'll reply for you!

:roll:





I PROVED IT!!!!!! Nothing you've written refutes that fact one bit!!!




:roll:

[shanek]

Is this REALLY someone's idea of rational debate? :rolleyes:

[Tmy]

This thread has been derailed. Time to push it back towards topic.

Im working on a voucher formula. Since you cant trace where your taxes are spent well just assume that all goverment is funded by a portion of your taxes. You take the amount the parents paid in taxes, then divide by the number of govt agencies/programs that exist and then you get you "share" back. Im guessing the average voucher will be about 3 dollars.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
But the point—which remains unrefuted—is that there is no reasonable basis for believing that government education improved literacy in any way above what private education would have done.
Except for the fact that government mandated a free education for all children. Your artificial distinction between public and "government" schools would only impact the curriculum, and in no way addresses the issue of access to schooling.

Regarding public vs. "government" schools: You have never provided any evidence supporting this distinction. What specific government interventions would have affected literacy rates?

In my opinion, "government schools" go back further than 1870 and are the major factor responsible for the drop in illiteracy.

The High School Policy of Massachusetts (http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABQ0722-0016-102): pp. 854-874
New Englander and Yale review. / Volume 16, Issue 64
November 1858

The Board of Education, in their Twentieth Report, made
the statement "that the public schools were losing their effi-
ciency, and the system itself its vitality. This alarmed pat-
riotic and good men, and gave rise, in 1834, to provision for a
school fund, and to the establishment, in 1837, of the Board of
Education."
The peril was indeed imminent. "Patriotic and good men
were alarmed" with reason. The Honorable Horace Mann,
in his First Report, as Secretary of the Board of Education,
speaks of the state of the public schools as "calculated to ex-
cite the deepest alarm in every mind which sees the charac-
ter of the next generation of men foreshadowed and prophe-
sied in the direction which is given to the children of this."
The causes, nature and extent of this peril of a system, so vi-
tally important to the highest welfare of the state, may be ex-
pressed in few words.
In speaking of the causes of this deplorable state of things,
the Board of Education, in their Twentieth Report, as quoted
above, use this language "With the increase of population,
the concentration of wealth, and the division of sects and of
classes, numerous private schools sprang up, and it was found
that the public schools were loosing their efficiency, and the sys-
tem itself its vitality." Here is indicated the root of the evil,
and one sentence declares it. By common consent the High
School feature of the old colonial system of 1647, had gone
into disuse, and the private school system had taken its place.
So those deeply interested for their own children, and having
the wealth to do as they pleased, diverted their children, their
money and their interest, from the public to the private
school. The consequences were natural, necessary, and full of
evil for the community at large. [Italics in original (!)]

There came also into the schools a great and perplexing
variety of text-books, making classification and reasonable
progress in the pupils impossible. An indifferent commu-
nity would not sustain the committee in obeying the laws that
required a uniformity of text-books. Each new teacher in-
troduced his favorite author; stranger scholars brought their
books from another district, or town, or state; the old ones of
others were supposed by the parents to be good while they held
together, and when one disappeared, leaf by leaf like those of
the Sibyl, it was replaced by the one last pubhished.*

* It is fresh in our own memory, that at a much later period than this we found
as Superintending Committee, ten different arithmetics in one district school.
And we remember, too, that cloudy Clan-Alpine gathering of the constituency, to
hear our reasons for excluding the motley ten, to give place to (Greenleaf’s
series. And we remember, too, that one man, the head of a large family, who
had but lately become able to read in simple sentences, gave it as his deliberate
opinion that Greenleaf’s Arithmetic was not fit for his children. We never told
the author, being tender of his feelings, and so he has since published several
other mathematical works. And we very distinctly remember, too, that all the
little mathematicians in that school did use Greenleaf’s Arithmetic

A state mandating uniform textbooks? Before 1858? Good Heavens--the state has been brainwashing children longer than we thought!

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
I posted a graph here awhile back showing illiteracy rates plummeting like a brick before there was any state or Federal taxpayer funding of schools, which didn't start up until the 1940s-'50s in the case of the states, and the '60s in the case of the Feds.

Can you provide a source stating that state funding of schools did not start until the 1940s?