American public education - myths exploded

[FlFishOn]

Pay no attention to the man (from the NEA) behind the curtain! Here is the skinny from horrible right wing think tankers on American education linky . It's long. Here's my favorite lie exploded:

<font color="blue">The rich-school myth

A popular myth says that private schools do better than public schools only because they have more money, recruit high-performing students, and expel low-performing students. The conventional wisdom is captured in one Michigan newspaper's warning that "a voucher system would force penniless public schools to shut down while channeling more and more money into wealthy private schools."

There is no question that, on average, students in private schools demonstrate significantly greater achievement. For example, on the eighth-grade reading portion of the NAEP test, 53 percent of private school students perform at or above the level defined as "proficient," compared to only 30 percent of public school students. In eighth-grade math, only 27 percent of public-school students perform at the "proficient" level, compared to 43 percent of private-school students. Interestingly, twice as many private-school eighth graders go on to earn a bachelor's degree as their public-school counterparts, in percentage terms.

However: it simply isn't true that public schools are penniless while private schools are wealthy. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the average private school charged $4,689 per student in tuition for the 1999Ð2000 school year. That same year, the average public school spent $8,032 per pupil. Among Catholic schools (which educate 49 percent of all private-school students), the average tuition was only $3,236. The vast majority of private-school students actually have less than half as much funding behind them as public-school students.

</font>

Enjoy!

[VTDuffman]

Students in private schools tend to do better because parents who make more money (and thus can afford to send their kids to private schools) tend to be more intelligent and sucessful. They are already at a genetic advantage.

If you take a dumb kid and put him in a private school, he's not going to magically get smart because the schools are so great, he's just going to be a dumb kid. If you take a smart kid and put him in a public school, he's not going to get dumb.

The problem with the notion of vouchers is that if you allow exemptions for people who put their kids in private schools, you have to allow exemptions for everyone not utilizing the public school system. I don't have any kids, why do my property taxes pay for the education of others? Etc.

[ QUOTE ]
The vast majority of private-school students actually have less than half as much funding behind them as public-school students.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, if this is an example of the conclusions comming out of a "think tank," then it's a crappy think tank. This is a fallacious assumption because it is comparing how much a public school *spends* per student and how much a private school *charges* per student. The fundmental flaw is that it assumes that the only way that private schools recieve funding is from tuition, which we all know is not true. They are spending much more per student than what they are charging in tuition.

I keep finding more problems when I read this:

[ QUOTE ]
recruit high-performing students, and expel low-performing students.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't dispel this notion. This happens in private schools all the time. And to boot, they are arguing against the fact that public schools currently are "penniless." But I don't think that's what the counter-argument is: the counter argument is that it would render public schools penniless.

I gotta be honest. There's logical fallacies all over the place here, this think tank kind of sucks.

[FlFishOn]

" I don't have any kids, why do my property taxes pay for the education of others?"

The simple fact that you ask such a foolish question makes suspect all of your other ideas. Have another Duff.

[VTDuffman]

[ QUOTE ]
" I don't have any kids, why do my property taxes pay for the education of others?"

The simple fact that you ask such a foolish question makes suspect all of your other ideas. Have another Duff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howso? If one contests that they should be exempt from paying taxes for public schools because their children do not utilize the public school system, an equally valid point should be that people who do not have children (an thus do not utilize the public school system) should be exempt as well.

If that is not an equally valid point, feel free to outline why it's not. But writing it off as "foolish" really doesn't do much to further your cause.

Why should some who do not utilize public schools have to pay for public schools, while others who do not utilize public schools not have to?

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should some who do not utilize public schools have to pay for public schools, while others who do not utilize public schools not have to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cause those snotty little brats that you are paying for now, will be funding the nurse who wipes your ass down the road?

Or, because it's in the countries best interest to have an educated society?

Or, so we can maintain a standard of living which we are accustomed to?

[VTDuffman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why should some who do not utilize public schools have to pay for public schools, while others who do not utilize public schools not have to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cause those snotty little brats that you are paying for now, will be funding the nurse who wipes your ass down the road?

Or, because it's in the countries best interest to have an educated society?

Or, so we can maintain a standard of living which we are accustomed to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody other than myself is going to be funding my senile, vomit-covered wrinkly old self. But, you know, I do stupid stuff like save for retirement. You're missing the point, though. I was never arguing against my property taxes paying for public schools. I was arguing against the notion that some people should be able to not have to pay for public schooling because they don't use it, while other do have to pay for public schooling even though they don't use it.

The post before yours was better. You made the mistake of inferring opinons that weren't stated and answering questions that weren't asked.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, because it's in the countries best interest to have an educated society?

Or, so we can maintain a standard of living which we are accustomed to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are great goals to have. Just because one may perceive those to be the goals of our public school system doesn't mean that it actually accomplishes those goals or that it is the best option to accomplishes them.

natedogg

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
" I don't have any kids, why do my property taxes pay for the education of others?"

The simple fact that you ask such a foolish question makes suspect all of your other ideas. Have another Duff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this a foolish question? Why should he be imprisoned if he doesen't pay for the education of someone he has never met?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
" I don't have any kids, why do my property taxes pay for the education of others?"

The simple fact that you ask such a foolish question makes suspect all of your other ideas. Have another Duff.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because education of children benefits society as well as the individual children who are educated? Doh!

As I mentioned in the other education thread, I dont think vouchers should be for the entire cost per pupil in the public schools, though. It should only be for the direct costs of education, teachers, supplies, books and so on.

Those are reasonably flexible costs and will not be spent when the student goes to private school. (Reasonably flexible because you cant eliminate partial teachers, there are no savings until enough students withdraw to actually eliminate a job, then no savings till the next job etc.)

Relatively inflexible costs of building maintenance, utitlities, debt service on bonds etc. should not be part of the voucher money. The residual amount the voucher doesnt cover can be looked at as the private school family's contribution to the societal benefits of broad education, similar to the childless families.

[VTDuffman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
" I don't have any kids, why do my property taxes pay for the education of others?"

The simple fact that you ask such a foolish question makes suspect all of your other ideas. Have another Duff.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because education of children benefits society as well as the individual children who are educated? Doh!

As I mentioned in the other education thread, I dont think vouchers should be for the entire cost per pupil in the public schools, though. It should only be for the direct costs of education, teachers, supplies, books and so on.

Those are reasonably flexible costs and will not be spent when the student goes to private school. (Reasonably flexible because you cant eliminate partial teachers, there are no savings until enough students withdraw to actually eliminate a job, then no savings till the next job etc.)

Relatively inflexible costs of building maintenance, utitlities, debt service on bonds etc. should not be part of the voucher money. The residual amount the voucher doesnt cover can be looked at as the private school family's contribution to the societal benefits of broad education, similar to the childless families.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh.