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.

[Your Mom]

My mom taught in the city public schools for over 15 years, before moving to a private Catholic school for the last few years. She says that the same things are taught in the same way. Two major differences.....In the Catholic school, parents are involved and make sure their kids do their homework, and at least halfway pay attention. In other words, reinforcement of what they get at school. Second, the learning environment is much less hectic due to the fact that schools can pick who comes, who stays, and the fact that most parents won't shell out a lot of money for their kid to go that private school and goof off.

[TomCollins]

Ever heard of the correlation doesn't imply causation fallacy? If not, you have a textbook example of it.

[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?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges. This is comparing the amount public schools *spent* per pupil, versus the amount private (mostly catholic) schools *charged* in tuition per student.

In addition to tuition the private students pay, the majority of Catholic schools recieve supplementary funding from their parish per student, and it brings their per student spending to nearly the same, if not in many cases much more per student.

That being said however, it does nothing to refute the assertion on results of private vs public, but I just wanted to point out that Catholic schools operate on a lot more than just the tuition of the students, and in some cases recieve more than 50% of their operating funds from the parishes and often use tuition as only a supplement.

[VTDuffman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges. This is comparing the amount public schools *spent* per pupil, versus the amount private (mostly catholic) schools *charged* in tuition per student.

In addition to tuition the private students pay, the majority of Catholic schools recieve supplementary funding from their parish per student, and it brings their per student spending to nearly the same, if not in many cases much more per student.

That being said however, it does nothing to refute the assertion on results of private vs public, but I just wanted to point out that Catholic schools operate on a lot more than just the tuition of the students, and in some cases recieve more than 50% of their operating funds from the parishes and often use tuition as only a supplement.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Shakes Fist*

I said it first, but you said it better. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[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?

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Ever heard of the correlation doesn't imply causation fallacy? If not, you have a textbook example of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the author attempting to prove causation. Do you? Implied? Perhaps, but not a proof.