GOP Mythology: Our Failing Public Schools

A school security specialist told me that future prisons are planned around the number of eight grade males who fail standardized testing. I wish I knew where he got the information, but it is chilling.

Also, most people are probably able to connect the No Child Left Behind program to Tim LeHaye's spectacularly apocalyptic "Left Behind" series.

By the way, Jade. I rated this a ten. I noticed you were hit by a drive-by One gunner. Go figure.

Thanks, Cheryl. I figure the 'one' rating was given to me by one of our conservative bretheren. They kind of dislike the truth.

NCLB is an abomination; it virtually requires teachers to 'teach to the test.'

I attended both public and private growing up. nd they both had their strengths and weaknesses.

Money magazine addressed the subject of public v. private schools about ten years ago and they arrived t the same conclusion that CrazyCelebrity did--if you lve in a middle class district or better, there was little difference between public and private.

Generally, the private schools are not held to the same accountability standards as the public schools because they do not rely on public funding.

Also, and I'm sure this could be debated, the demographics within the private school student enrollment generally reveal that students come from more affluent homes with enough money to afford the tuition.

From everything I've seen in the last 6 years, I believe that the current administration is motivated to eliminate as much funding for public education as possible.

Jade,

Seeing that your article cites a report from The New York Times, I had to make sure that the bi-line was not by Jason Blair....maybe it was by a Jason Blair in making.

None the less, let us read the fine print, shall we?

The two new studies put test scores in context by studying the children's backgrounds and taking into account factors like race, ethnicity, income and parents' educational backgrounds to make the comparisons more meaningful. The extended study of charter schools has not been released.

Students in private schools typically score higher than those in public schools, a finding confirmed in the study. The report then dug deeper to compare students of like racial, economic and social backgrounds. When it did that, the private school advantage disappeared in all areas except eighth-grade reading.

"In the real world, private school kids outperform public school kids," Mr. McTighe said. "That's the real world, and the way things actually are."

So how exactly did the study "account factors like race, ethnicity, income and parents' educational backgrounds"?

And here I thought it was all just about comparing scores and performance, instead of cooking the numbers.

This is EXACTLY what conservatives complain about, the manipulation of numbers by liberals to cover up their failure to deliver the goods to the most disadvantaged.

When public school graduates go to college, or out into the world of employment, no one is going to give a shit whether they did COMPARITIVELY better to people in their own racial, ethnic and social economic group.

Employers will only care how well they perform compared to the general population.

This is why standardized tests are the only way to measure success.

Greg: This is where you could really benefit from a survey course on statistics.

And you have to understand what is being measured.

You have to understand that when you compare private and public schools--you're comparing two different populations. A public school, by law, has to admit basically everyone--kids with learning disabilities, ESL students, etc. OTOH, private schools are able to discriminate--they can reject the special needs kids or the kids who don't speak English as well or even kids who don't meet certain academic criteria. Thus, you're comparing a random population with a self-selected population.

Try and remember what is being measured; you conservatives are always griping that public schools aren't doing the job. Well, that gripe has been debunked once again.

"maybe it was a Jason Blair in the making" - come on, that's a bit unfair!

The point I'm hearing is "why quash this?" Good reporting, Jade.

Jade I enjoyed your article. However, since you live in DC which has a horrendous public school system and I do not think this article would apply. DC school system is corrupt, full of nepotism and discouraged teachers. How would you bring a public school in DC up to snuff with a public school in Fairfax VA? You can't. You are dealing w/ a corrupt culture. If you fire everyone you would be called a racist. It would be political suicide. One solution that has been working is vouchers. Now some charter schools are not great and are a huge scam and have been closed down. However, some have worked and surpassed the DC public school system. If I was poor and lived in DC, I would at least like an alternative to the abysmal DC public school.

And you have to understand what is being measured.

That is about as racist as you can get, Jade.

Why does the left feel they have the right to disparage minorities at will?

Conservatives believe that all people are equal and have equal capacity to achieve.

If public schools are so crappy that they cannot produce solid learning, they should not be blaming their failure on race, and ethnicity.

michael b: You obviously don't know much about DC. The first thing to understand about DC is that their budget is controlled by the US Congress. I'd add DC doesn't have a vote in either the US House or Senate. As such, DC has no effective control over revenues or how revenue can be raised.

As a result, DC Government is very much hamstrung in how much they can allocate to education.

Even so, on a per-pupil basis, DC spends about $500 more per student than Fairfax County but nearly $4000 less than Arlington, $3000 less than Alexandria, and $600 than Montgomery County.

This despite having far more kids with special needs and kids whose first language isn't English.

That is about as racist as you can get, Jade.

Nice reach, Greg. But it doesn't work.

The fact is you tried--as you so often do--to try and change the discussion when you were proven wrong.

Remember, this study is about the effectiveness of public v private schools. You attempted to change it into a discussion of outcomes.

Why?

Because you wish to promulgate a myth.

This study is an attempt by Clinton-era hold-over's within the Department of Education to blame the victims for dysfunctional educational policies.

Here is the short-list of problems:

- Union rules dictate that pay, position, and protection from declining enrollment layoff are allocated on the basis of seniority. The effect of this misguided policy is that young, inexperienced, poorly paid teachers churn through inner-city schools while older, more experienced, better paid teachers gravitate to "better" schools within the same inner-city districts.

- Discipline, discipline, discipline. One can tell the difference between a public and a parochial school by the sound of chaos in the former and the silence of learning in the later.

- The insistence of the public school system to mainstream violent and disruptive students.

- The use of ESL programs past the first year despite the proof from California's experience that such programs retard performance over time.

Instead of acknowledging these problems, this study uses demographics to blame the victim, children and their families, to mask the failure of the public school system.

The bottom line: despite race, ethnicity and family circumstances, the same child will do better in a private school

Nice rant, Greg.

But it isn't true.

This report was commissioned last year by the Dept. of Education. As I recall, our last democratically-elected President had been out of office over four years at the time this report was contracted.

Additionally, let's assume for a moment President Clinton's evil minions had ginned up this report. Do you seriously believe they have the power to release it without the express permission of the Secretary of Education?

The bottom line: despite race, ethnicity and family circumstances, the same child will do better in a private school

The report says you're lying, greg. That's the real bottom line.

This report was commissioned last year by the Dept. of Education. As I recall, our last democratically-elected President had been out of office over four years at the time this report was contracted.

Jade, you are so cute when you flip-flop between God-like knowledge and feigning ignorance of the basic facts of government.

Administrations only have power over political appointees which comprise an infinitival fraction of civil servants, the rest of government employees enjoy civil service protections.

The Department of Education belongs in a domain that is not only the cash-cow of the Democratic Party but also the cash-cow of much of the organizations that comprise the activist left; cash that flows from the coffers of the teacher's unions.

It is vital to the power and privilege of the left to maintain the dominance of the teacher's unions in education. This is what this report is about.

Suggesting that the political appointees of the Department of Education could or would control the release of this report feigns ignorance of the workings of government.

So which is it Jade?

Which way are you spinning today, God-like knowledge or ignorance?

Or a little from column A and a little from column B?

Administrations only have power over political appointees which comprise an infinitival fraction of civil servants, the rest of government employees enjoy civil service protections.

Time to give Greg a little lesson.

First, nothing gets issued by a cabinet-level agency without the express approval of the head of that agency. In this case, the head of the Dept of Education was appointed by AWOL George Bush.

Second, seniority in Government agencies is often dictated by length of service. Thus the more senior folks in the Dept of Education--or any other agency--entered service during the terms of Ronald Reagan and George Bush the Smarter.

Third, if you look at the Executive Summary of the report in question, you will notice it is endorsed by Margaret Spellings--the Secretary of Education. And an AWOL George appointee. Are you suggesting Ms. Spellings is in the habit of endorsing reports she disagrees with?

First, nothing gets issued by a cabinet-level agency without the express approval of the head of that agency. In this case, the head of the Dept of Education was appointed by AWOL George Bush.

An outright lie.

Under The Freedom of Information Act and Congressional Inquiry Powers ALL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS not bearing a classification of secret for security reasons are available to the public, the press and Congress.

Any experienced administrator knows that once a document has been compiled it is just about impossible to keep it under wraps therefore it is politically prudent to release such documents.

Second, seniority in Government agencies is often dictated by length of service. Thus the more senior folks in the Dept of Education--or any other agency--entered service during the terms of Ronald Reagan and George Bush the Smarter.

Federal employment is done through the civil service, a non-partisan process which is neutral to the administration in power.

Third, if you look at the Executive Summary of the report in question, you will notice it is endorsed by Margaret Spellings--the Secretary of Education. And an AWOL George appointee. Are you suggesting Ms. Spellings is in the habit of endorsing reports she disagrees with?

Nice try Jade.

A word text search of the document revealed precisely one instance of Ms. Spellings name -- on the standard department letterhead.

The printing of a document under a letterhead is not an endorsement since ALL DOCUMENTS released by a department bear its letterhead.

Now if Ms. Spelling wrote a forward, I would be interested in what she had to say.

But let's look at what the report actually said:

Fourth Grade Reading:
In the first set of analyses, all private schools were compared to all public schools. The average private school mean reading score was 14.7 points higher than the average public school mean reading score, corresponding to an effect size of .41 (the ratio of the absolute value of the estimated difference to the standard deviation of the NAEP fourth-grade reading score distribution). After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was near zero and not significant

Mathematics
In the first set of analyses, all private schools were again compared to all public schools. The average private school mean mathematics score was 7.8 points higher than the average public school mean mathematics score, corresponding to an effect size of .29. After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was -4.5 and significantly different from zero.

In other words, we found consistent differences in performance but we used statistics to whitewash the differences away.

The New York Times makes the claim though the Report itself does not claim to be "peer-reviewed" since the report was published in July 2006 which, of course, leaves no time for peer-review, unless of course the "peers" were the authors at ETS.

There is not a single cite to an independent journal publication of the report, nor peer comments on its methods.

In other words, there has been no prior peer review to the July 2006 release.

In the short time since the release, there has been scathing criticism.

For instance:

The report examined data from the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP)assessments in reading and mathematics. In 2003: over 6,900 public schools and only 530 private schools participated in the grade 4 assessments. Over 5,500 public schools and over 550 private schools participated in the grade 8 assessments. This is an unbalanced and unfair method of evaluation. The private school sample is too small to give a fair analysis.

For a very simplified example the major city has a graduation rate of 48%, most of the surrounding suburbs have graduation rates of 80% or above. If we take the location out of the mix anyone could state that in this major metropolitan area the average graduation rate is 64% (80 + 48 divided by 2=64). This is not true for either location.

As time goes on and criticism piles up, Jade and her ideological ilk at The New York Times and Teacher's Unions will slip quietly into obscurity......having done their job of misinformation.

Hmmmm...Greg's been a busy lad. Let's see what lies we can discover.

Lie 1: Under The Freedom of Information Act and Congressional Inquiry Powers ALL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS not bearing a classification of secret for security reasons are available to the public, the press and Congress.

Greg describes the FOIA process. A small problem for Greg's argument is the wee fact this document was not FOIA'd. To FOIA a document or record, an individual must complete a form stating what document he or she wishes to see---it is a time-consuming process and may not necessarily lead to that document being released.

BTW, Greg also misstates--badly--the reasons a document or record may be withheld. A document may not be released in response to a FOIA request if it is classified, if it's related solely to internal personnel rules and practices, if the agency has a statute against release of certain documents, if the records contain personal info (such as medical or financial data), if it contains personnel info, investigatory or law enforcement data, etc.

Lie 2: Federal employment is done through the civil service, a non-partisan process which is neutral to the administration in power.

Earlier, you asserted the Dept of Education was in the thrall of the liberal left and was comprised of nothing but lefties appointed by our last democratically-elected President.

Can't have it both ways, Greggy.

Lie 3: The printing of a document under a letterhead is not an endorsement since ALL DOCUMENTS released by a department bear its letterhead.

Oh yes it is.

Here's an experiment you can try at home: obtain letterhead from a federal agency--then type up some bogus nonsense and issue it to the media. When you're in court, you can try out your novel defense that it didn't mean an endorsement.

It's baffling to me that Greggy would try to argue the report isn't endorsed by the Department of Education even though the report is available on the Dept. of Education website. Further, if you check out the very last page of the .pdf report --it contains a postage frank from.....the Department of Education.

And if you want copies of the report, here's the contact info:

For ordering information on this report, write to
U.S. Department of Education
ED Pubs
P.O. Box 1398
Jessup, MD 20794-1398
or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

Lie 4: In the short time since the release, there has been scathing criticism.

Wow, Greg. Sure is scathing. This is almost better than when you tried to use Celebritygossip.com as a source.

You see, the reason Greg didn't post a cite referencing said "scathing criticism" is because he's quoting a blogger--a Ms. Valerie Nelson.

Ms. Nelson's qualifications? Here they are:

Valerie is a Families.com blogger, freelance writer and small business owner. Valerie helps non-profit organizations with fundraising through grant development for their programs and projects.

Valerie enjoys spending time with her family and currently lives in Michigan.

Valerie also writes about dating after divorce and why people should attend premarital classes.

Jade Gold's Lie #1:

A small problem for Greg's argument is the wee fact this document was not FOIA'd.

No one suggested that it was.

First Gold lies about the ability of an agency to withhold information:

"First, nothing gets issued by a cabinet-level agency without the express approval of the head of that agency. In this case, the head of the Dept of Education was appointed by AWOL George Bush". - Gold.

Now she pivots around to changes her story and admit that indeed agency information can and will be FOI'd by media and other political interests which is precisely why I pointed out the report was not quashed.

Jade Gold's Lie #2:

Earlier, you aasserted the Dept of Education was in the thrall of the liberal left and was comprised of nothing but lefties appointed by our last democratically-elected President.

I never employed the words "appointed" and "nothing but lefties". Claiming that I "asserted" this is just another in a well-documented long list of things that you spin into existence.

Jade Gold's Lie #3:

Here's an experiment you can try at home: obtain letterhead from a federal agency--then type up some bogus nonsense and issue it to the media. When you're in court, you can try out your novel defense that it didn't mean an endorsement.

Ms. Gold pretends that because the Secretary Maragret Spellings name appears exactly once on the letterhead of the report that Ms. Spelling is personally endorsing the conclusions and methodology of the report.

Ms Gold also pretends that I "asserted" that the report was somehow printed without agency authorization, I never suggested such a thing. What I did state was that the report was released because it was compiled by a contractor with taxpayer money. It was released by the Department because any attempt to withhold the report would simply set off another political fire storm.

Release without comment, which is what the Department did, is a far cry from "endorsement" which is what Ms. Gold asserts.

Here is the report Margaret Spellings name occurs exactly once on the heading of page 4. There is no forward, no comment, and contrary to Ms. Gold's assertions there is no endorsement of the report by Secretary Spelling.

Jade Gold's Lie #4:

Wow, Greg. Sure is scathing.:

Ms. Gold attempts to deflect the criticism of lack of peer review of the report by criticizing the quality of peer review.

You cannot have it both ways, Jade.

Jade Gold's Lie #5: The Big Lie
Propagandists like Jade Gold were alerted to this report for the sole purpose of misinforming primarily people of color. There is a racism that runs deep through the left that believes that people of color and children of color are their chattel.

The single most important question that parents of color need to ask is: Will my child do better at the public school two blocks north or Saint Elsewhere three blocks east?

The answer is that children of color do better in parochial schools. The single most compelling statistic is graduation where Catholic Schools graduate 95% of their minority students while comparable public schools struggle with a 50% graduation rate.

The purpose of this study is to manipulate statistics to obscure that fact and misinform parents.

Criticism of the report mounts

Writing in The washington Monthly Kevin Drum notes:

If this suggests to you that public schools came out OK in this new study, you'd be right. Basically, it was a review of NAEP scores in math and reading that was controlled for things like gender, race, English proficiency, poverty level, etc. Here are the average scores for public schools compared to private schools:


4th grade reading: +1.1 points.
4th grade math: +4.1 points.
8th grade reading: -5.7 points.
8th grade math: +0.6 points.


This obviously suggests that private schools haven't discovered a magic bullet for educational reform, despite what their supporters might sometimes claim. Still, I don't think this report is exactly cause for breaking out champagne among public school champions.

First, there's that 8th grade reading score, which is a whopping 5.7 points (about half a grade level) below that of private schools. That's a big difference.

Second, these scores confirm a widely-reported and disturbing trend: public schools seem to do OK at the elementary level, but student scores start to drop significantly in secondary school. In this study, the delta between public and private schools dropped 6.8 points in reading and 3.5 points in math between 4th and 8th grades. If the study had been extended to 11th grade, I suspect that decline would have continued.

Mr. Drum kicks the legs out from under one of Jade Gold's fantasies, that of the "endorsement" of the report by Secretary Spelling:

The release was timed for Friday and, according to the New York Times, "was made without a news conference or comment from Education Secretary Margaret Spellings."

Greg has changed his story so many times it's difficult to know what he's ranting about. But let's address of few of his major lies.

The endorsement of the report: Any time any document is publicly issued by any Federal agency, it is endorsed by that agency. These agencies are not in the habit of generating documents for public consumption they disgree with or don't believe in.

Now, I'm sure Ms. Spellings would have much preferred this particular repot never existed as it violates her agenda---but the fact is the methodology is sound and the data is all derived from Dept of Education sources.

Scathing criticism At least Greg has moved from Celebritygossip.com and Valerie Nelson to Kevin Drum--that's a positive development. But Greg still misses what is being measured and that is--with all other factors being equal--public schools do just as good a job as private schools.

And that is the essence of Kevin Drum's article--that private schools don't hold the magic key that many conservatives believe. Drum goes on to say that academic performance drops among those who live at near poverty levels.

Greg plays the race card At no time in my article or comments did I mention race. Yet, Greg seems obsessed by it. The fact is the majority of children of any race attend public school. So, if public schools are the problem Greg asserts--then it just doesn't affect black kids.

When Greg makes a blanket statement such as The answer is that children of color do better in parochial schools.--he has no facts to support such an assertion. The fact is parochial schools self-select; that is they can discriminate. They can reject any kid who has a learning disability, they can reject a kid whose English skills may not be up to par, they can reject the kid whose academics may be below standards, they can reject a kid who has a physical handicap, etc. And this holds true if the kid is white, black, blue or green.

Further, the report does address parochial school performance. As I noted in my article--from the study:

The report separated private schools by type and found that among private school students, those in Lutheran schools performed best, while those in conservative Christian schools did worst.

In eighth-grade reading, children in conservative Christian schools scored no better than comparable children in public schools.

In eighth-grade math, children in Lutheran schools scored significantly better than children in public schools, but those in conservative Christian schools fared worse.

The endorsement of the report: Any time any document is publicly issued by any Federal agency, it is endorsed by that agency. These agencies are not in the habit of generating documents for public consumption they disagree with or don't believe in.

According to Webster the definition of endorse is:

2 a : to approve openly (endorse an idea); especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely b : to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation

Releasing a report without benefit of a press release, without acknowledgement of the Secretary of Education, without comment is the exact opposite of an endorsement.

At least Greg has moved from Celebritygossip.com

Yes, I did quote Celebritygossip.com and it in conjunction with other sources proved you to be a liar.

I pointed out in another thread where you were complaining about FOX that CNN had been controlled by ever so radical Ted Turner and Jane Fonda. You claimed that Ms. Fonda had no financial stake in Turner Broadcasting, I showed she had tens of millions worth of shares. At that point you simply created a convenient lie, claiming that Ms Fonda came by those shares AFTER her divorce to Ted Turner. Celebritygossip.com and other sources, including WSJ revealed the truth that Ms. Fonda received the shares as a pre-nuptial agreement prior to her marriage to Ted Turner.

If you are going to criticize a source, make sure you are right and it is wrong or else you look more the fool.

When Greg makes a blanket statement such as The answer is that children of color do better in parochial schools.--he has no facts to support such an assertion.

On the contrary, not only did my citation of the Washington Monthly article provide substantiation, but I cited graduation statistics. See Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-City Children

In a study published in 1995, William N. Evans and Robert M. Schwab of the University of Maryland School of Economics used two measures to evaluate the relative effectiveness of public and Catholic schools: the decision to finish high school and the decision to start college.34 Using HS&B data and paying particular attention to selection bias, the authors found that attending a Catholic high school raised the probability of finishing high school and entering college for inner-city children by 17 percentage points. "This is twice as large as the effect of moving from a one- to a two-parent family and two and one-half times as large as the effect of raising parents' education from a high school dropout to a college graduate," observed Evans and Schwab. They also noted that Catholic schools have a particularly strong effect on students with the lowest probability of graduation—inner-city black pupils, students in urban areas, and students with low test scores.

In 1996, William Sander, professor of economics at DePaul University in Chicago, published the results of a study examining the effect of a Catholic grade school education on the test scores of whites, using data from HS&B.35 Sander found that non-Catholics benefited the most from attending a Catholic grade school—even more than Catholics themselves. Looking at the effects of Catholic grade school education on 10th grade test scores and controlling for selection bias, Sander found an improvement in mathematics, reading, and vocabulary test scores of students after they had attended a Catholic grade school for eight years.

In 1995, Sander and Anthony C. Krautmann, an associate professor of economics at DePaul University, examined the effects of Catholic schooling on high school dropout rates and educational attainment for all races.36 Paying careful attention to selection bias and using HS&B data, they found that Catholic schools had a significant negative effect on the odds of dropping out. Specifically, Catholic schooling reduced the odds of dropping out by at least 10 percent compared with public schools.

In 1997, Derek Neal, an associate professor in economics at the University of Chicago, published a detailed analysis of the effect of Catholic secondary schooling on high school and college graduation rates and future wages. To control for selection bias, Neal used data from the National Catholic Educational Association (which provides directories with the address and enrollment of every Catholic school in the United States), the Survey of Churches and Church Membership (which provides the total number of people in most religious denominations by county), and the 1980 census to construct measures of access to Catholic secondary schooling for each county in the United States.37

Neal merged this information with the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and found that African-American and Hispanic students attending urban Catholic schools were more than twice as likely to graduate from college as their counterparts in public schools: 27 percent of black and Hispanic Catholic school graduates who started college went on to graduate, compared with 11 percent from urban public schools. In addition, the probability that inner-city students would graduate from high school increased from 62 percent to at least 88 percent when those students were placed in a Catholic secondary school. Furthermore, when compared with their public school counterparts, minority students in urban Catholic schools can expect roughly 8 percent higher wages in the future.

The latest study in this area, conducted by University of Oregon economists David Figlio and Joe Stone,38 attempts to minimize selection bias as much as possible. Unlike most authors who used either HS&B data or National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data from earlier periods, Figlio and Stone used data from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS)39 to measure differences between public and private schools in the performance of their students in mathematics and science.40 They employed a rich set of variables (for example, race, religious affiliation, and where the parents went to school) to determine who decides to attend school in the public, religious, and non-religious private sectors. As a result, their findings are less likely to be merely symptomatic of the fact that higher-ability students tend to enroll in private schools.

Figlio and Stone found large, positive differences in test scores for black and Hispanic students who attended religious schools, an effect even more pronounced in urban areas. These positive effects are consistent with Neal's finding that Catholic schools have a significant positive effect on black and Hispanic student performance (measured as a reduced risk of dropping out), but have no substantial effect for the general student population. Figlio's and Stone's "religious schooling effect" was even stronger than Neal's findings for blacks and Hispanics in urban areas, particularly in large central cities.41 They also found that black and Hispanic students from the 8th to 12th grades gain the most from religious schooling because religious schools yield high academic results.42

In addition, Caroline M. Hoxby, a Harvard economist who studied the effectiveness of school choice programs, found that competition from Catholic schools increased academic achievement at both public and Catholic schools.43 Hoxby's findings led her to state that greater private and Catholic school competitiveness raises the academic quality of public schools and the high school graduation rates of public school students. Hoxby also found that public schools reacted to this competition by increasing teachers' salaries. Through choice, she concluded, students at both public and private (including Catholic) schools would increase the amount of time spent in school by about two years, and their math and reading test scores would improve by about 10 percent. Consistent with Neal's findings, Hoxby also noticed a wage increase of 14 percent for private school graduates.

More on private vs. parochial graduation rates.

From The Economist

As for the Catholic schools that dominate the programme, these are clearly schools first and Catholic second. Parents choose them, first and foremost, because they have decades of experience in providing a good education for inner-city children in a safe and disciplined environment. The graduation-rate for their pupils is 99.6%—against around 30% in the public schools. Yes, they have crucifixes on the walls; yes, they expect children to be present for religious ceremonies (although they do not insist that they take part). But they are hardly hell-bent on making converts. One priest points out that he cannot even get his own parishioners to turn up to mass. Why should he suddenly be more successful with voucher children?

The question, why are have the school of bloggers like Jade Gold all pivoted together in perfect synchronization to begin touting an obscure report limited to playing statistical tricks with fourth graders?

The answer is pretty obvious: Money, Money, Money, and, oh yes, power and privilege too

Education is a several hundred billion dollar industry that serves as the cash-cow of the left. The left is funded with a direct infusion of Teacher Union dues, with empty-suited employment for their faithful, and kick-back consulting contracts that drain money from public education.

In short, the left needs the dominance of unions in public education to maintain its funds, power and privilege. If they have to misinform and mislead primarily families and children of color, especially the victims of dysfunctional schools -- so be it.

When one traces the origins of school choice, it leads directly back to the activism of African-Americans like Dr. Howard Fuller.

When one traces the resistance to school choice, it leads directly to the multi-billion dollar industry of the Teachers Unions.

Releasing a report without benefit of a press release, without acknowledgement of the Secretary of Education, without comment is the exact opposite of an endorsement.

You're losing this one, Greg.

Would you put your name on a report you disagreed with? I know I wouldn't. Further, I suspect most--myself included--would not choose to release a report I had significant problems with. As for FOIA--let people FOIA. I'd merely state the report doesn't reflect the agency's beliefs or mission.

That's essentially what you're accusing Spelling of doing.


Yes, I did quote Celebritygossip.com and it in conjunction with other sources proved you to be a liar

Only in your mind. Gossip is, well, gossip.

On the contrary, not only did my citation of the Washington Monthly article provide substantiation, but I cited graduation statistics.

Once again you deliberately miss what is being measured. It is not graduation rates.

Remember, the vast majority of private schools self-select. This means they can discriminate--they don't have to take the special needs kids, they can reject the kids who don't speak English well, they can reject kids with physical handicaps and they can refuse to take kids who aren't performing well academically.

A public school is required to take anyone who shows up.

When you normalize the two populations--the study shows there is very little difference between public and private schools.

This is akin to an MD who only elects to see patients who are healthy, don't smoke, exercise religiously and have no genetic histories of illnessand trying to claim he or she is a better doctor because fewer of his/her patients die than an MD who sees anyone who comes through the door.

WRT the Economist article (which deals with Cleveland's voucher program)--it's been debunked:

In the only real head-to-head face off, voucher students who attended private schools for kindergarten spent three years in either private or public schools. In all three subjects the students who chose public schools after kindergarten had higher gains and in two subjects they had higher final test scores. The public schools thus won five of the six head-to-head comparisons, despite the fact these public school students, 87% of whom were minority, started out with beginning test scores well below the private school students in all subjects, and even though the private schools boosted their scores by losing more of their lowest scoring students each year.

On top of that, even those low scoring students who subsequently left private schools had higher academic gains after returning to their public schools than they had experienced in their private schools.

By almost any measure, the public schools in Cleveland soundly trounced the private schools in academic achievement. And considering that the public school students were less affluent, less White, and less motivated, the public schools won with one arm tied behind their backs.

Would you put your name on a report you disagreed with?

Secretary Spelling did not put her name on the report. Her name was printed in one place in the report in keeping with the standard stylebook of Department of Education Publications.

Once again you deliberately miss what is being measured. It is not graduation rates.

Precisely my point: the graduation rate is the last thing the liberal propaganda mill wants to address. They need so desperately to limit focus, in this case third graders, as if to say, "look here, look only here!" and even at that they must cook the statistical books to whitewash the documented fact that even third graders do better in private schools.

The question: Will my child do better in a private or public school? is still overwhelmingly answered by the response: Children do better in private schools

Remember, the vast majority of private schools self-select. This means they can discriminate--they don't have to take the special needs kids, they can reject the kids who don't speak English well, they can reject kids with physical handicaps and they can refuse to take kids who aren't performing well academically.

Of course what you fail to mention is that there is an offsetting "self-selection". Public school systems have implemented the magnet schools system to attract the most gifted and high performing students.

In Saint Paul Minnesota, the mostly minority Central High School was converted into a magnet school with advanced placement mathematics, science, music and arts classes. The result is a highly segregated affair where mostly white students attend classes on the upper floors while the neighborhood kids languish in the bottom floors.

The results are predictable when one averages the test scores. The results are also highly deceiving to the minority parent who asks. Will my child do better in a private or public school?

On the other hand, highly integrated parochial Catholic High Schools located within the same city do quite well with substantial black, Hmong, Somalian, and Hispanic populations.

WRT the Economist article (which deals with Cleveland's voucher program)--it's been debunked:

Far from it, the "research" you cited focuses solely on the same, and only, sweet spot found when comparing public vs. private schools; that of (quoting from your link) " kindergarten through third grade" Similarly, the Department of Education Report that is the subject of this thread does statistical tricks to make claims on the basis of ONLY fourth graders.

The Economist article, and the research that I cited, speaks to what everyone else admits to, the simple fact that performance at public schools declines as age rises.

The bottom line is that when a parent asks, Will my child do better in a private or public school? the honest answer is Children do better in private schools

Jade Gold and ilk try to spin studies like this to anwer the question --- "Well, if we massage the numbers using Hiearchial Linear Modeling we can make the third and fourth grade look equally good for private and public schools.

I have no idea how they would subsequently respond to the question: Okay, but what happens to my kid after the fourth grade?

What Jade Gold is REALLY telling parents is

"Look, my radical politics depends on the money we get from Teacher's Unions. As a matter of fact, the Democratic Party heavily depends on money from Teacher's Unions.

So we really, really need your kid to stay in public schools.....all right?"

Secretary Spelling did not put her name on the report.

Someone from the Department she heads did. And it isn't debatable that whoever did so had authorization to do it--otherwise, we'd be seeing some personnel actions.

So, it still appears that Spellings endorsed the report.

Precisely my point: the graduation rate is the last thing the liberal propaganda mill wants to address.

To the contrary; but it is an entirely separate issue that the topic at hand. Again, you don't wish to address the fact private schools discriminate--it's no different than insisting you be dealt three aces in every poker hand and then claiming you're a superior poker player.

The question: Will my child do better in a private or public school? is still overwhelmingly answered by the response: Children do better in private schools

All things being equal, this isn't true. You have no evidence to support such a claim.

OTOH, I have plenty of evidence to support my assertions.

But let's try an experiment, Greg--see of you back me up on this: suppose we provide full vouchers for any kid wishing to attend the private school of his or her choice. And we insist private schools don't self-select--they must admit anyone who applies. In the event there are more students than can be accommodated--let admissions be based on a lottery.

I can assure Greg will have problems with this.

Someone from the Department she heads did. And it isn't debatable that whoever did so had authorization to do it--otherwise, we'd be seeing some personnel actions.

Someone always puts the Secretary's name on the standard departmental style sheet according to the departmental style book. This name is changed each time the Secretary is changed.

The same goes for the letterhead, according to the departmental style book

To the contrary; but it is an entirely separate issue that the topic at hand. Again, you don't wish to address the fact private schools discriminate--it's no different than insisting you be dealt three aces in every poker hand and then claiming you're a superior poker player.

Not at all, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender and income, the variables that the study used.

Nice try.

All things being equal, this isn't true. You have no evidence to support such a claim.

Another outright lie; I provided extensive documentation of graduation rates.

But let's try an experiment, Greg--see of you back me up on this: suppose we provide full vouchers for any kid wishing to attend the private school of his or her choice. And we insist private schools don't self-select--they must admit anyone who applies. In the event there are more students than can be accommodated--let admissions be based on a lottery.

RUN FOR COVER JADE, your handlers are going to really be pissed at that suggestion!!!!!

OH MY GOD, just imagine if privates schools were able to take ALL students AND THE BUDGET THAT GOES WITH THEM!!!

You see Jade, not only do special students have special needs but they attract special funding.

In Minnesota, under some circumstances, special needs families CAN convert public dollars to private schools - - and the public schools fight them tooth and claw!!

OH MY GOD, just imagine if privates schools were able to take ALL students AND THE BUDGET THAT GOES WITH THEM!!!

Yes, just imagine when Master Everton Pishposh Faurquahar IX can't attend his family's tony and snooty private school because he lost the lottery.

And imagine when those trendy private schools have to put in wheelchair accessible ramps and hire teachers who can sign.

In reality, of course, voucher programs were never intended to help the poor--they were merely a gift to those who were already sending their kids to private school.

Case in point, when Newtie Gingrich was running around DC a decade ago--he proposed a voucher plan for DC. His plan called for providing a $2500 voucher/child to DC residents. Of course, at the time, the average K-8 private school tuition in DC was over $7000. And the average DC private HS tuition was north of $12000.

So, imagine...you're someone at or near the poverty line. You want to send your kid(s) to a private school. You're looking at paying the difference --usually $3000 or 4000 per kid.

Of course, the wealthy DC residents who were already sending their kids to private schools were thinking, 'Hmmm, $2500 extra....maybe I'll get those custom-made golf clubs.'

And imagine when those trendy private schools have to put in wheelchair accessible ramps and hire teachers who can sign.

Jade, now you are just sputtering filth.

Do you really expect us to believe that because a child is in a wheelchair that they fall behind academically? How exactly do you account for the likes of Steven Hawkings?

By the way Jade, wheelchair ramps are required by law on all buildings, just as it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender and income.

Of course, the wealthy DC residents who were already sending their kids to private schools were thinking, 'Hmmm, $2500 extra....maybe I'll get those custom-made golf clubs.'

The funding level for Washington DC Schools is approx. $10,000 per pupil annually. source

Ten grand spent at a private school would mean some pretty posh digs, maybe even golf as an extra-curricular activity.

Do you really expect us to believe that because a child is in a wheelchair that they fall behind academically? How exactly do you account for the likes of Steven Hawkings?

Kids who are physically-challenged often have very specisl needs (ramps, teachers who can sign, therapists, etc.). It doesn't follow that they perform any better or worse than other kids--but it can't be denied they are a considerable expense to educate.

Private schools can merely blow off this expense by not admitting them.

WRT Sir Stephen, you should be aware he's an exception to both dsabled and abled people. IOW, his genius is a one in a hundred million anomaly. BTW, Hawking didn't begin showing signs of his crippling illness until he was 21.

By the way Jade, wheelchair ramps are required by law on all buildings, just as it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender and income.

Again, you're simply wrong. The ADA stipulates ramps and accessibility features be incorporated into:

Title II - Public Services
Subtitle A covers state and local governments generally;
Subtitle B applies to most public transportation systems
Title III - Public Accommodations and Services (including transportation) Operated by Private Entities

Thus, a private school operated by a private entity is under no obligation to make its buildings accessible.

The funding level for Washington DC Schools is approx. $10,000 per pupil annually.

I noted that in comments above. But again, you miss the costs associated with educating everyone who applies. Special needs, handicapped, kids who don't speak English all cost more to educate.

Again, you're simply wrong. The ADA stipulates ramps and accessibility features be incorporated into:

Look again.

TITLE III PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERVICESOPERATED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES

(7) Public accommodation. The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this title

(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;blockquote>

And again

ADA Title III - Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities

Who it covers:

Private businesses and service providers, such as restaurants, hotels, medical offices, theaters, retail stores, libraries, museums, banks, parks, daycare centers, convention centers, and schools.

I noted that in comments above. But again, you miss the costs associated with educating everyone who applies. Special needs, handicapped, kids who don't speak English all cost more to educate.

Parochial schools do much better with non-English speaking children. The Catholic Parochial School I attended as a kid just absorbed some 90 Hmong kids from refugee camps in Thailand.

They did this in addition to absorbing some 30 Somalians and fairly good number of kids from Mexico and Guatamala.

They do much better than public schools because they do NOT cater to specific languages instead they use a peer system of total immersion into English.

Most elementry students acquire grade level English within the school year.

I can speak to this success on a personal level, as my nieces returned to Minnesota from Brazil speaking only Portugese and acquired a full command of English in a single summer.

Parochial Schools are not burdened with identity politics nor the extra pay of ESL Teachers who are motivated to keep kids in ESL programs rather than to get them out of the programs as quickly as possible.

When Greg decides to be wrong--there's no stopping him.

From the DoJ:

As places of public accommodation, private schools are
subject to the requirements of title III of the ADA (not title
II, which applies to public schools) and the Department's title
III regulation. Different standards apply under title III than
under title II. For example, under the title III regulation, a
private school must remove barriers to accessibility where such
removal is "readily achievable."

Even if structural alterations are necessary to provide
program accessibility, section 35.150(a)(3) states that a public
entity is not required to alter its facilities if it can
demonstrate that the alterations would cause a fundamental change
to its program or that the cost of the alterations would result
in undue financial and administrative burdens.

This means a private school can claim the addition of such accessibility features such as ramps or elevators is not "readily achievable" and can forgo having to put them in.

Additionally, religious schools are completely exempt from the ADA.

I noticed how you neglected to provide a link to your source. A source that was nothing more than an opinion.

This letter provides informal guidance with regard to the questions you have posed, but does not constitute a determination by the Department of Justice of rights or responsibilities under the ADA and does not constitute a binding determination by the Department of Justice.

Nice try Jade,



Well I must say you have spun like a top to "say anything, do anything" to mislead the parent who asks the question "Will my child do better in a public or private school?"

The best answer to that question in light of this heavily flawed report is:

If your child is in third grade or under, we can massage statistics to look like public schools compare with private schools,.....but after third grade.....GET OUT QUICK!!

What I find most troubling about the methodology of this report is that it implies demography is destiny.

Put crudely, the report refuses to look at the factors in the schools themselves, such as discipline, staff turn-over and moral guidance, instead the report focuses on the demographic characteristics of the children themselves.

The obvious result is that these uncontrolled variables, like staff turnover become attributed to the children, not the school.

For instance, it is a fact that most African-American children go to public schools. It is also a fact that these schools perform poorly. What this report does is attribute that failure to blackness instead of public-schooledness.