Recently, one of my friends informed me that she would be attending the National Education Association Student Program Conference in Washington, D.C. As the son of two parents who are teachers, I've long held opinions about the NEA. I follow up on the issues in their monthly magazine and have grown increasingly angry at the organization. What follows is my reasons for opposing them.The NEA is the largest teachers union in the country, in a corrupt system. The public education system in our country is doing a horrible job, is unfair, and is unconstitutional.
It's a monopoly. I'll explain what I mean by using an analogy.What would you do if the government came to you and said that you had to shop at Wal-Mart for all of your shopping? You don't like Wal-Mart, and in fact, you like the local grocery store better. Also, say that Wal-Mart costs twice as much as the local grocery store, had worse products, and the products they sold were things you didn't like or want. But, too bad, you have to shop there. You, as an American, would never put up with it. If this scenario really happened, Wal-Mart would be a terrible place to shop. If everyone had to pay and go to Wal-Mart, they wouldn't have any incentive to provide good products. But we aren't forced to go to Wal-Mart: you can go to Kmart, or Target, or whatever. Since you have options, Wal-Mart has to do a good job, or else no one will go there and they'll go out of business.
Now, this analogy accurately describes our public education system. Everyone has to pay money to it, and you don't have any choice. Sure, you can pay to send your kid to a private school; but you still have to pay for the public school system. According to the Washington Post, Washington D.C. public schools spend $12,979 per student. The CATO Institute believes that private schools in D.C. get, on average, about $10,000 less per child. So if you send your kid to a private school, or home school them, you are paying those costs on top of what the public district already gets from you in terms of tax dollars.
To counter this, voucher programs are needed. This means that the parents of a child get that $13,000 and can use it to send there kid wherever they want. This would mean that the public school has to do a better job, or else nobody will go there and will take the money elsewhere. This has been tried in Cleveland and Milwaukee and has worked enormously well (though the parents only get a partial amount of that money to spend at a different school). Naturally, teacher unions and most notably the National Education Association hate this idea. They like the system how it is and insist that districts just need "more money" and they will perform better.
According to UNICEF and other organization, in recent tests America is getting trounced by the rest of the world. In 4th grade, our kids are amongst the top 5 in the world. In 8th, we are middle of the pack. By senior year of high school, we are near the bottom. We are being beaten not only be the Japanese and other modernized countries...but by places like Portugal, Greece, and even some African countries. Keep in mind that we spend more (by far) than any other country in the world. So what's different between us and others? Well...other countries have an education system where you are free to go where you want. Our educational system is like the Wal-Mart I described in my scenario; it is government-run and has no reason or incentive to do better.So that's the argument against public schools in general, but what about the NEA? Besides being against voucher programs, there are many other proposals the NEA supports that are dangerous and just plain bad ideas. This includes tenure and equal pay for equal time. Tenure is ensured after 3-5 years of teaching in a district. It is nearly impossible to fire a teacher after they have gained tenure. In Illinois, where I'm from, the number of public school tenured teachers fired per year since 1985 has never been over 5. It costs over a quarter of a million dollars to fire a teacher in the New York City school district; possibly explaining why some teachers are paid (and given pay raises!) while sitting in jail (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-06-30-teacher-tenure-costs_N.htm).
Imagine if the businesses in our country ran this way: Work hard for 3 years, and then after that you're guaranteed a job for life, as long as you don't rape a child or kill someone. It would be a disaster. If I owned that business, I couldn't fire anyone. The reason that America has the best and top-performing businesses in the world is because people know that if they don't do a good job, they will lose their job. The opposite of this is true in countries like France, where it is nearly impossible to fire businessmen; and their economy is in the tank.
Equal pay sounds like a good idea. It's the idea that you are paid based on how long you've worked somewhere rather than the value you bring. So gym teachers, math teachers, science teachers, etc. are all paid the same. Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that teaching gym class and learning how to do that is as difficult as math and science? In academia today, we are having a harder and harder time finding math and science teachers. This is because people will teach "easier" subjects and go through schools learning things that aren't as challenging because they are paid the same anyways. To give you an extreme example: Imagine if a company paid the CEO and the janitor the same amount. It sounds good in theory, but in practice is horrible. Everyone would be a janitor, and nobody a CEO. CEO's, much as we like to demonize them, provide a valuable service to the company and only got there because they are so talented.
The NEA also supports "force-fee" initiatives. There are some "right-to-work" states in which teachers don't have to be in unions, but other states follow a "force-fee" standard in which the states' public school teachers are forced to be in a union and pay dues. A teacher in Illinois recently won the TEAI--Technical Education Association of Illinois "Teacher of the Year" award, was an ITEA "Teacher of Merit", and sent a letter of protest to them in the same month. It seems that the NEA has an official position of being "pro-choice" on abortion and this teacher had a problem with them being involved in that issue. How do I know this? Because that teacher is my father. This goes along with the NEA's position of being pro-gay marriage. Now, issues of abortion and homosexuality are complicated and controversial; but come on, should a union dedicated towards teachers really be getting involved in these issues that have nothing to do with education? The NEA sends 99% of the money it gets towards Democratic politicians, and thus supports Democratic positions. It is an endless cycle of unfairness, and children are on the losing end.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
You fucking liar, your dad is Steve Skorup, and he won "teacher of the year" from the TEAI, not the NEA. One is given away to one person nationally, and one given out to 38 at the state level so either you're lying or your dad is an idiot and is sending letters to the wrong people. Also, even crazy places like the lexington institute only say 40% of the NEA's budget when making up numbers about "leftist ties", not 99% like you, you blithering idiot.
This is your dad:
http://www.ipsd.org/newsevents/news_item_detail.asp?id=16375
40%:
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1029.shtml
Youre really dumb.
Oh also this:
In 4th grade, our kids are amongst the top 5 in the world. In 8th, we are middle of the pack. By senior year of high school, we are near the bottom.
isnt true unless you were talking about ONLY science (http://nces.ed.gov/timss/timss03tables.asp?figure=1&Quest=1)
but you didnt mention that, or cite sources, because all you do is make shit up, and fyi, about that teacher paid to be in jail?
"after pleading guilty earlier this month"
"Article Last Updated: 06/28/2008"
teachers usually get paid for 12 months a year, and school fiscal years usually end late july/early august, so theyd have to pay that woman for work she had already completed anyway. Maybe ask your dad next time I guess.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000064
My numbers in terms of money from the NEA towards Democrats is based on money from the organization...not from individuals. The average is 93% towards Democrats and 7% towards Republicans. I was citing money strictly at the national level however, which is indeed 99% or basically all.
Oh, and I corrected the teacher of the year award mistake. It was a small part of my point, but I apologize. And I replaced the older link about the teacher being paid while in jail...it was rather simple because there are several examples.
I noticed you left the bulk of my arguments alone however.
Well, the bulk of your argument is "vouchers work" when its pretty clear that they don't.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=678202&format=print
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/voucher_report/index.shtml
All they do is allow rich people to suck their funds out of the system, leaving low-income students even worse off.
http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/ClevelandVouchers.pdf
Furthermore, you seem to be missing the point of tenure: stability. Tenure makes teachers hard to fire, yes, but it also makes it hard for them to leave a school. This ensures that parents and students see familiar faces, and that the administration doesnt have to re-train an entire staff to the ins and outs of a school (and community) every year. Your argument seems to be that teachers automatically stop caring and start getting a paycheck as soon as they get tenure, and honestly, if you think teachers are usually in it for the money, you should probably think again.
P.S. The NEA usually endorses Democrats because Democrats usually put "actually funding our schools" as a priority.
To be honest I didnt respond to the rest of your arguments because Im not quite sure what they are. You make an argument against public schooling, and then rail against tenure while failing to mention that many private schools offer tenure as well. The "equal pay for equal time" idea is completely ludicrous for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being youd have to find a way to objectively quantify which subjects are worth more money, and thats not even touching the idea that if you tied salary to performance or test scores, teachers would probably just cheat (as "No Child Left Behind" has shown) and if they did, good for them. Who are you to say a gym teacher is essentially a janitor? They go to school for the same amount of time, and work the same hours. But I digress, if youve got a cohesive point past "waaah waaaah my dad is crying because the politicians who want to pay him more dont agree with him on everything" Id certainly like to hear it.
Vouchers don't work? Interesting that where I'm living in Washington D.C. is pushing hard for vouchers...and this is with a city council of basically all liberal. Even the Washington Post (among the most liberal newspapers in the country) is pushing for it; with editorials supporting school choice in 8 of the last 11 days newspapers. Saying free choice doesn't work is the same as saying that Walmart doesn't work and that it should be government subsidized.
And blacks support voucher programs at a greater percentage than whites...and the lower class does more than the upperclass. Tell them that it "leaves low income people worse off".
Tenure doesn't just make it difficult to fire a teacher, it makes it impossible. You can advocate for tenure...but you should also be consistent and demand tenure in every area of hire: police stations, fire stations, pilots, army, and every private sector job you can imagine.
To your third point...I don't assume teachers are in it for the money. That's not an argument I make towards my parents who are both teachers. Teachers should realize that they would make MORE money if there was no tenure and the school system was privatized.
I should clarify that I'm NOT against unions...if you want to be in one, be in one. But forced unionization? Taking money from Republican teachers and giving it to Democrats? That sounds fair to you?
Last, who needs to objectively quantify what subjects are worth what? We have something that does that for us...the MARKET. A CEO isn't paid more than a janitor because every voted him there...it's because he's worth more to the company. I never said a gym teacher was worth what a janitor is...he may be worth more than a CEO, but we'll never know because you are paid based on experience and time put in. This is NOT how the private sector works. Free markets are prosperous markets and until we change our system, our students will fail.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006461
The lack of progress in education is a travesty considering the U.S. spent $390 billion, or 4.2% of GDP, on education in 1999, making it one of the country’s largest industries, over three times larger, for instance, than the entire automotive, bus and truck manufacturing industry. We spend, on average, over $8,000 per pupil, ranging from a $12,202 average in New Jersey to a $4,860 average in Utah, while in 1960 we spent $2,000 per pupil, adjusted for inflation, and we have seen no improvements in test scores or graduation rates despite the increase in spending per pupil. Any company that increased costs fourfold and paid out no dividends would be disbanded quickly and management would probably be investigated for negligence and fraud. Not so with the government monopoly on education. We still pour hundreds of billions into this sinkhole with little expectation of improvement. Change will come when Americans stop seeing public schools as a charitable cause and start seeing schools for what they are: an industry selling a service called education.
You need to relax, Anon., b/c you totally flib at the suggestion that teachers are not the selfless angels you imagine them out to be. They are normal people, like you and me, who respond rationally to incentives. The fact is, when you have a very secure and "stable" job, it becomes difficult to justify improving your performance when the incentives aren't there, i.e. loss of job for inadequate performance. The numbers bear this out:
A recent study found that out of 72,000 teachers in New York City, only three were fired for incompetence in a two-year period. Most states see less than 1% of teachers fired in a year while the average for all professions is 8%.
Based on this information and the fact that public schools are doing poorly, economic theory would predict that teachers do not have enough incentives to improve their teaching. When you are not paid based on productivity and quality, as you are in most other careers, and have little chance of being fired, you have little incentive to go through the costly process of improving your productivity and quality.
1999
Also, nearly all of the countries who are beating us in test scores spend MORE than 4.2% GDP on education. 4.2% is nothing compared to what we spend on, say, national defense. The problem with "economic theory" (i.e. thinly disguised libertarianism) is that it aspires to some odd 19th century ideal. We had no public schools once, and public schools were established to ensure every child would receive an education. Like it or not, not everyone would be able to afford a fancy private education, ESPECIALLY when private schools could raise their tuitions above the voucher cost to keep out the riff-raff. Also, if you have a child with special needs, forget about them going anywhere. Its like you guys jerk off to Charles Dickens.
We spend over $8,000 per child! I'd start a private school and take in special needs kids for that much per kid!
Yes, and youd make a lot more money with non-special needs kids. The market doesnt afford a whole lot of space for altruism.
Wrong...many private schools take in special needs kids. It's certainly profitable to do so...especially at 9 thousand dollars per kid. Using your argument, nobody would tutor less intelligent kids; smart kids are much easier. Nobody would sell corn; just oil, because it's more profitable.
Even home school services accept the mentally handicapped (http://www.adamsacademy.com/faq.htm). It certainly is profitable to accept such students, and there is no need for altruism.
Smart kids dont need tutoring. A special needs kid gets the same voucher money as a regular kid but has *gasp* SPECIAL NEEDS. Its ok, though, everyone knows all those special needs like one-on-one aides or whatever are totally free.
You all seem to be under the impression that "8,000 dollars a kid" isn't an average, either. The real issue with public schools is the dumb "hope you have high property values/taxes" way theyre funded, which breeds inequality and vouchers do NOT fix. Sure we "pump more money in" but we do it in places like New Trier or Lincolnway, affluent communities where land is actively being developed. A school in a low-income neighborhood doesnt really have a chance at more funding, and theyre the ones that need it most. Surprise surprise, theyre the ones that kids taking vouchers would hurt the most, but luckily for them, vouchers are usually only partial credits and come in the form of a reimbursement well after the fact, so those kids cant afford it anyway.
Or we could take all of the money we throw away daily in Iraq and use THAT to fund education. That doesnt even require more tax dollars.
It's a fact that the inner-city schools in Chicago get more money per student than schools in the suburbs. Let's use a small case study; comparing one of the best areas in IL versus one of the worst: New Trier versus Proviso East.
New Trier:
Median Income: $127, 809
Home price avg.: $617,900
Money per student: about $25,000 per student
Proviso:
Income: $41,970
Home: $109,200
Money per student: over $24,000 per year
http://iirc.niu.edu/School.aspx?schoolID=140162090170001&source=school%20profile
There is an approximate difference in money of about $1,000. Neuqua Valley, Glenbard North, Schaumburg, etc. The other schools in the outer suburbs get LESS than Proviso. Waubonsie (where my dad teaches) gets about $14,000 per kid.
http://iirc.niu.edu/School.aspx?schoolID=190222040260001&source=school%20profile
This is about $10,000 less than Proviso! Look at those links, compare those test scores...and THEN tell me it's about money.
There are countless factors to consider when looking at test scores, not just money. However, if we ARE looking at money, youll note that those numbers seem oddly derived, especially when you consider that the average teacher salary is 20,000$ more at New Trier, and 5,000$ more at Waubonsie. Again, Im not sure what your argument is as you were the one who initially posited that this is all about money.
Youll also note that, as percentages, Proviso is able to spend far (about 10%) less on education and instruction, gets far (about 10%) less money from property taxes, has a much higher teacher/student ratio (14 versus 18, down from 21 thanks to state aid), has more unqualified teachers teaching classes, and has far more truant and at risk students. Youll note that New Trier has 2% of low income students and a near 100% graduation rate, while Proviso has 43% and is near 70, so perhaps there are other factors at work here? All New Trier proves as an example is that rich kids can probably succeed anywhere, which pretty much makes vouchers irrelevant, as its not the kids at Proviso thatd be taking them.
Well, Im a little incorrect. The 43% of kids who are low income certainly wouldnt be taking them, and letting the 57% that arent take vouchers only drains more funding from low-income students, which has been my point all along.
Id love to be able to compare these things to private schools, but its almost as if private schools arent held accountable for these numbers at all! Whod have thought that!?
You've missed the point entirely. Yes, Proviso gets less in property taxes...and yet spends more then Waubonsie because of the federal money pumped in. And yet they score terribly. What's this tell us? It's not about money! The private schools getting voucher money in Milwaukee and Cleveland are trouncing the public schools...with the same kids! The parents whose kids are doing the worst are the most likely to take the voucher money and move their kids from the public school...and they immediately start to improve. Then your post turns into a rambling mess:
"Youll note that New Trier has 2% of low income students and a near 100% graduation rate, while Proviso has 43% and is near 70, so perhaps there are other factors at work here?"
Yes, and the other factors aren't money. It's accountability. Something private schools have and public schools don't.
"...but its almost as if private schools arent held accountable for these numbers at all!"
But of course they ARE held accountable. If the private school does a bad job, kids get pulled out of the school and it shuts down. If a public school does bad...nothing. Your argument is like saying that Walmart isn't held accountable. If Walmart did a bad job, you wouldn't shop there.
WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART WALMART
Private schools arent really accountable for anyone. They have 0 responsibility to not teach crazy shit, they dont have to provide numbers to anyone, and even if they were, they could very easily lie.
IM GONNA TEACH EVERYTHING NORMAL EXCEPT THAT CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS WAS A FIFTEEN FOOT TALL SIX-LEGGED CRAB MONSTER AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU CAN JUST GET OUT
Also if youre going to make analogies you really shouldnt use a business that is pretty much universally derided as horrendously evil hth. Oh wait, I guess Wal-Mart hates unions as much as you do so it works.
I don't anyone is taking your comments seriously because you know so little about economics; but I'll address what you say anyways.
"Private schools arent really accountable for anyone. They have 0 responsibility to not teach crazy shit, they dont have to provide numbers to anyone, and even if they were, they could very easily lie."
Yes...and Wal-Mart and KMART could sell "crazy shit" and not provide numbers to anyone either. BUT THEY WOULD GO OUT OF BUSINESS. That's what we who understand Economics 101 like to call, accountability.
"IM GONNA TEACH EVERYTHING NORMAL EXCEPT THAT CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS WAS A FIFTEEN FOOT TALL SIX-LEGGED CRAB MONSTER AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU CAN JUST GET OUT"
...and then you would get out. And they would go out of business. Right?
"Also if youre going to make analogies you really shouldnt use a business that is pretty much universally derided as horrendously evil hth. Oh wait, I guess Wal-Mart hates unions as much as you do so it works."
Irrationally derided as evil. In a free-market economy, there's no reason to hate a business. If you do...don't shop there.
Its good that you call what you do "Economics 101" because, like all free-market libertarians, its the most insanely myopic viewpoint Ive ever seen. Here are the assumptions you would have to make in order to reach your conclusions:
1) All people, and businesses, are perfect "rational actors" (I know you guys love this term) who always know whats best for them.
2) Every private school, even the most insanely religious ones, are run for a profit.
3) A monopoly is impossible in the system of private education.
4) Education is absolutely not a necessity, i.e. if public schools were insanely underfunded and the only school in town taught some crazy things (intelligent design), everyone would just pull their kids.
5) A private school would never, ever break the law to get ahead.
Dont give me that "a monopoly is impossible in a free market" shit either. The reason people shop at Wal-Mart even though they may loathe some of their policies (buying non-American goods, being non-union, etc.) is because in a lot of instances, they dont have a choice on their budget.
I would like to point out that you still havent addressed the real issue here, which is "all this does is really fuck poor kids"
Please try to use at least one of the following cliches so I can laugh:
"invisible hand"
"rational actor"
"laffer curve"
"the CATO institute says" (you did this one but I want another)
"DO YOUR RESEARCH" (you kinds did this one too but not outright)
"Milton Friedman says"
"Ron Paul says"
"1) All people, and businesses, are perfect "rational actors" (I know you guys love this term) who always know whats best for them."
They aren't.
"2) Every private school, even the most insanely religious ones, are run for a profit."
They aren't.
"3) A monopoly is impossible in the system of private education."
It is.
"4) Education is absolutely not a necessity, i.e. if public schools were insanely underfunded and the only school in town taught some crazy things (intelligent design), everyone would just pull their kids."
Education IS a necessity, but people have a right to choose what education that may be.
"5) A private school would never, ever break the law to get ahead."
It may, but if they really broke the law, they'd be caught and wouldn't "get ahead" for very long.
"Dont give me that "a monopoly is impossible in a free market" shit either. The reason people shop at Wal-Mart even though they may loathe some of their policies (buying non-American goods, being non-union, etc.) is because in a lot of instances, they dont have a choice on their budget."
I would love to see one instance where people "have no choice" but to shop at Wal-Mart. If you really believe this, why don't you take out a loan and start a business? Just like Wal-Mart, but don't do the things they do that you don't like. Allow unions, don't outsource, etc. This is what's known as "competing" in a free-market system.
"I would like to point out that you still havent addressed the real issue here, which is "all this does is really fuck poor kids""
You clearly don't know what vouchers are. How? By taking the government money and letting poor people decide where to go to school? Rich kids don't need a voucher program...they have enough money to send their kids wherever they want. So, on the contrary, poor people are who is helped by vouchers.
Your other points are laughable...I'm a conservative, not a libertarian. I'm not calling for complete privatization, but am still using government money. I'm not calling for no accountability; SAT and ACT scores can still be used, which colleges will use to see how well schools are doing.
Vouchers rarely, if ever, cover full tuition. They do not cover additional costs like uniforms or books. They come in the form of a rebate six to seven months after tuition is due. In pretty much every case, 75-80% of vouchers are taken by kids already in private school. Its cool you think my
points are laughable, but how about those? Youve been dodging them literally the entire time. Actually, youve stated my point perfectly by pointing out that
"Rich kids don't need a voucher program...they have enough money to send their kids wherever they want. "
A few points Anon:
Your conflation of economics terminology and libertarianism is confusing; you're intelligent so you obviously know the distinction between a political philosophy and a social science. I can only suppose you are using the conflation of economics and libertarianism to dismiss any arguments out of hand, similar to the way you set out a list of free-market terms that you judge to be laughable.
I'm going to clear up some confusion you seem to have with economic models that assume rational actors, perfect information and perfect competition: they are just that, models that remove extraneous information. They generally reveal what the world looks like but not perfectly. They are used so that there is a baseline on which to model economic behavior. I suppose you also begrudge physicists for developing models based on conditions not found in reality as well, perfect vacuums, zero friction, 0 degrees K, etc?
Anyways, back to the main issue. The onus is on you to explain why we should we continue to pump millions of dollars into a public education system everyone right and left agrees is broken, and subsidize a labor monopoly in the public sector. Your solution, more government oversight and funding, has been tried for 4+ decades and we can safely say has failed miserably, the latest calamity being Bush's NCLB. Yet you still come to the table promising earnestly that more government oversight and funding will work this time. Forgive me if I'm not convinced.
It is not unreasonable to expect that market forces via some privatization and personal choice would improve education, just as it has improved airlines, postal services, trucking, food service, etc. And honestly, the perverse incentives created by having a labor monopoly in the public sector is immense. You deny this fact but because economic assumptions have been proved true by the low turnover, artificially high wages, and poor output by public school teachers, you do so at your own peril.
No, the onus is on YOU to prove why people should be allowed to take their money out of the system when theres absolutely no proof that private schools are better. Theres already some privatization, as private schools do exist. Im not sure what you mean by airlines or trucking, so ill pick a different example: the postal service. Sure, Fedex and UPS are nice, but you cant say "oh, no thanks, federal government, im gonna do all my mail through fedex now." The fact of the matter is that an education for every child is something we have very firmly established in this nation, and your tax dollars (and mine) pay for that right. Theres no reason (or evidence) to assume that we should let people be selective about where their tax dollars go. If youre going to have something be a universal right, it HAS to be handled by the government.
There is literally decades of research that says private schools are better. However, let's assume that they aren't. If they aren't, people will send their kids to public schools. If they are, people will send their kids to private schools. You arrogantly say that you KNOW which is better and aren't even letting people choose. If private schools aren't better, they will go out of business. If public schools aren't better, well, THEY will go out of business.
The beauty of vouchers...
"Literally decades of research"
Sure.
ON THE OTHER HAND:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006461
"Based on adjusted school means, the average for public schools was significantly higher than the average for private schools for grade 4 mathematics, while the average for private schools was significantly higher than the average for public schools for grade 8 reading. The average differences in adjusted school means for both grade 4 reading and grade 8 mathematics were not significantly different from zero."
Also let me point out again that PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS. There IS a choice already.
First, that's a government report. It's like me taking a report from a private school organization and telling you to take it at face value.
http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/bg1968.cfm
In fact, here is a quote from a group looking at YOUR study:
"The NCES study analyzes the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data that, due to a major limitation, are ill-suited for making any causal inferences. The NAEP data assess achievement only at one point in time, providing a snapshot of how American students are performing in math and reading at that specific time. The NAEP data are not suitable for evaluating the effectiveness of private or public school attendance in raising academic achievement. In fact, the NCES authors explicitly warn against this in two sections of the report that are appropriately titled “Cautions in Interpretation.”"
What's interesting is that according to a new study, "more than 25% of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools." And, "Nationwide, public school teachers are almost twice as likely as other parents to choose private schools for their own children."
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/
That's weird...
For poor people there is no choice. They simply cannot afford to send their kids to a private school (which they think is better) on top of what they pay in taxes or otherwise. This is the last time I'm going to spell this out for you: The government is taking YOUR tax dollars and spending it on YOUR children. YOU should have a right to use the money they are spending on your kids anyways, to send your kid to the school that you want. Listen, you DO realize that the government has to certify private schools right? You can't just open one up in your garage.
Haha youre gonna quote the Heritage Foundation straight up? I love how they say "the best way would be a random survery" when the "cautions for interpretation" clearly states "THIS IS NOT A RANDOM SURVEY." Im really glad you could show me those "literal decades" (when I say periods of over ten years I MEAN IT!) of research, though. Im also really glad youve addressed my "hey, poor kids really CANT afford vouchers" arguments, too.
P.S. "YOUR tax dollars pay for YOUR student's education" and "Proviso and New Trier get the same money" are pretty much mutually exclusive. Your tax dollars go to your child's
school, not some special fund for just your kid.
Seriously though if you post studies make sure theres at least 20 years between them, as you did say "decadeS"
your tax dollars also pay for many other things. in a municipality, your property and car taxes go into many, many other public projects that you use daily. yes, even you right wing little brats. do you drive on roads in your town? do you have waste collection weekly in your town or do you live in a pile of garbage? does your town have a recycling program? does your town have snowplows that keep the roads clear during snowstorms? does your town have bridges that (hopefully) dont collapse that allow you to travel more efficiently? does your town have a police force to keep it safe? does your town have several firestations that take care of small disasters and other assorted dilemmas? does your town have public parks and sporting fields that you and children are free to use? These are some of the many things that your tax dollars pay for in towns and cities. So next time your spoiled little right-wing, wal-mart-loving, bible-thumping, rich ass uses any of the amenities mentioned above, be thankful that you pay taxes. or, you can choose not to pay them! look how that worked for wesley snipes!
I should know all of this... i am a municipal deputy tax collector.
Your post would make complete sense...if I was arguing for anarchy somehow. As stated, I'm not even a libertarian.
The Friedman Institute cites 17 studies that show that voucher programs work, in every area studied. You've cited ONE government study that says students come out equal, "or a little better" in vouchers. So let's just assume for the sake of argument that everything turns out the same. Well! Vouchers are half the price! So let's do them!
Also...enough with the ad-hominems. Talk about the arguments...
Heres an argument: you suck dick
Post a Comment