“The voucher opponents might respond that those poor inner city kids are more likely to end up at a fly-by-night shop than the expensive prep school I attended. The problem with this argument is that vouchers aren’t mandatory; if the only private schools available are worse, then the kid can stay right there in their public school. Ignorant parents are a problem, of course–but the dirty little secret of urban public schools is that kids attending public school are just as shortchanged by having ignorant or uninvolved parents as kids attending private school; perhaps more so, because parents who have to hand a check to the school, even a government check, have more incentive to shop around. The New York City school system works very well for the small minority of middle-class parents who have the time and knowlege to secure resources for their kids. The poorer and darker skinned are left with the dregs. At least vouchers offer the possibility that some unlucky kids might end up with a decent education. The public school system, which transfers teachers out of poor schools into more desireable ones in wealthier neighbourhoods as soon as they are dry behind the ears, certainly isn’t doing it”. –Asymmetrical Information
Aug21st2006
Yet another item contradicting all of you opponents of those “inferior” traditional public schools. Here is the latest results of test scores.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14466095/
Combine this with the results last month comparing public school performance to tradional private schools and it is quite obvious that on the whole traditional public schools are as good if not better than the private schools.
Now why would anyone want to divert money from these competent public schools and give them to private schools where the education is no better than the public schools.
I’m sure the public school bashers will spin these results to fit their argument like they tried doing with last months results. But the data is pretty clear even to a lowly graduate of public schools like myself.
Michael,
I think we are not understanding each other. Proponents of vouchers are not pro-charter schools, we are not pro-private schools, and we are also not anti-public schools. What we are is pro-choice and pro-competition. Currently, there isn’t enough competition among charter, private and public schools to see much difference (it’s like less than 5% of the population attending non public schools). But if a full voucher plan were implemented, you would see significant competition and, like everything else when faced with competition, a greater improvement - not just among private and charter schools, but also among public schools (for more on all of this read this).
Also, in many poor areas going to a different school could be a lifesaver. I grew up in Compton, California, a city with a large population of gangs. In Compton, if you grew up in a neighborhood that rivals the neighborhood gang that controls the public school you are assigned to, going to that public school can be hell. So in these circumstances, simply having options can mean the difference - even if the alternative school is just as bad. That is why proponents of vouchers push for choice. We think the parents should have the power - the same power rich people have - of sending their kids to where they think is best.
Lastly, there are many problems with the studies you quote. Not just by ‘partisan hacks’ either, but even Harvard University itself questions the studies and the methodology used, see here.
Ahh Harvard, what side would you expect the richest private school in the world to fall in this debate.
Ahhh, the U.S. Department of Education, what side would you expect the largest government run monopoly in the United States to fall in this debate?
You see, the finger could be pointed in both directions. Now what is left is to look at the data.