"By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and DANNY HAKIM
Published: January 30, 2007
ALBANY, Jan. 29 — Gov. Eliot Spitzer declared on Monday that he would propose a major increase in state aid for New York’s public schools in his first budget and would seek vastly expanded oversight of local school districts, including wide powers to remove school boards or force the dismissal of superintendents for repeated failures."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/nyregion/30schools.html?hp&ex=1170133200&en=f177f5f86dab4218&ei=5094&partner=homepage
While it's agreed that New York's public school system could use some work, I think throwing (even more) money at it is the wrong answer. While the entire budget change and accompanying regulation would try to illicit certain changes, and while it might succeed, I am shocked that New York still hasn't attempted privatization of education. Proponents of privatization often use New York as their favored example, because taxpayers there spend nearly 3 times more money per pupil than parents who pay for private schools average, and for an education of considerably lower quality. New York has more than tripled it's education funding since 1982 with less than favorable results... is more money really the answer, or is privatization the right choice? (Disclaimer: By this I don't mean parents should suddenly be forced to pay anything, just that the tax-money should be given out to the private schools, per tax-funded student taught there.)
While money can certainly be mismanaged and probably has been in New York, there is a direct relationship to increased spending on public schools and student performance. Similarly, research shows no difference in the average performance of public and private school students. Where public funding has been used for private schools, it has frequently been the case that the private schools simply raise standards or costs above the value of the voucher, meaning that the poor students who are most affected by public school failures don't benefit from them and taxpayer funds end up subsidizing private school attendance for middle and upper-class students. Privatized schools also have a mixed record. Anyone examining how they have performed elsewhere might not find them to be a viable option for a city as large as New York.
ReplyDelete1- That potential loophole you mentioned could be easily closed with any new privatization legislation. Things rarely work exactly the way they're supposed to the first time, but in this case one could simply include that no vouchers will be redeemable to schools whose tuition is higher than the voucher's value.
ReplyDelete2- I have noticed that in response to claims that private school students have had higher success rates in the real world after highschool, proponents of public schools in New York have bent over backwards to show that among standardized testing, (not exactly a perfect measure of real-world success mind you, but still a decent measure) public school students have done "as well as" those in private school, and I would tend to agree that the information is accurate. The problem therein is that their goal appears to be attempting to equal a system in quality that utilizes three times the efficiency. So my challenge would be to triple the private schools' funding, wait a few years, and then see how the ball rolls.
All things considered I applaud New York for being willing to shell out that kind of dough for education... I just wish the students saw more of that money in action.
>That potential loophole you mentioned could be easily closed with any new privatization legislation.
ReplyDeleteCould be, but has this ever been done in the real world? Not to my knowledge.
>no vouchers will be redeemable to schools whose tuition is higher than the voucher's value.
This would probably then eliminate the ability of anyone to actually use the vouchers or take even larger chunks of money out of public schools. What happens to an already bad school when it loses money? What happens to the kids who can't change to a private school and are stuck in the bad public school?
>I have noticed that in response to claims that private school students have had higher success rates in the real world after highschool,
I've seen no evidence to support this and I wonder if such a thing can even be measured.
>standardized testing, (not exactly a perfect measure of real-world success mind you, but still a decent measure)
But is the purpose of high school to prepare students for the real world or to prepare them for college? Standardized tests are flawed, but they are the only quantifiable measure we currently have that can be used for cross-time and cross-location comparisons.
>The problem therein is that their goal appears to be attempting to equal a system in quality that utilizes three times the efficiency.
Sounds like the truth by declaration fallacy to me. Where is the evidence for the "three times the efficiency" claim? There is a common assumption that the private sector is always more efficient than the public sector, but the evidence tends to suggest this isn't the case. Small businesses tend to be more efficient by necessity (or they die), but corporations usually are not particularly efficient.
>I just wish the students saw more of that money in action.
How do you know they don't? You seem to be assuming here that a significant portion of the money goes to frivolous things. Where is your evidence for that assumption?
"Where is the evidence for the "three times the efficiency" claim?"
ReplyDelete"How do you know they don't? You seem to be assuming here that a significant portion of the money goes to frivolous things. Where is your evidence for that assumption?"
1/3rd the money, similar results.
Efficiency = output / input.
Defenders of the NY public school system cite the similar standardized test results, but ignore the huge difference in spending.
>Where is the evidence for the "three times the efficiency" claim?
ReplyDeleteAgain, where's the evidence. Evidence is a source, not an expansion of the argument. Statistics are rarely this simple. Per pupil comparisons are a good start, but you also have to standardize the outputs. Performance on tests are only one portion of what finances pay for. You also have to look at a variety of other things, such as remediation, extracurricular programs, funding for food and other services for poor students, facilities, counseling and security for students who have problems or engage in criminal activity because of their poverty, student/family financial contributions to education, private tutors vs. publicly-funded pupils, etc. Per pupil spending as part of the overall budget is a very incomplete measure. The quality of education between places would be better compared by per pupil spending on academics, but that would still be incomplete.
Also keep in mind that funding is not the only "input" in the system. The quality of the students coming into the system are also a factor. If the public schools start out with a much lower quality of student and achieve the same level of outputs, that should cost more, shouldn't it?
I'm not defending the NY school system, since I don't know much about it. I am arguing against privatization, though, because the evidence doesn't support that it is successful at solving the problems it is prescribed for. I don't have a problem with private schools, but they don't work for everyone and they aren't particularly better than public schools.
Base stats of NY and other school districts, including the recent huge jumps in spending
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3683
Some of the money 'not going to the kids' actually tracked down
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15595
More evidence of waste in NYC, negative correlation between time in American public schools and standardized test scores, and examples of success of public-funded private school systems in other countries
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33014.html
Most proponents also cite the required competition as an improvement even in public schools as well, meaning it may not directly "solve the problems it is prescribed for" but start in motion a change. Even the failed privatizations in MI and CA saw a spike of improvement in the public school system right before privatization took place, because the fear of private schools taking over was forcing last minute reforms. As the last site points out the US Postal service was a stagnating and poorly performing operation until the introduction of competition, and now it keeps up with it's private counterparts. Likewise some infer that the introduction of choices of better schools, for parents of inner-city lower-class youth, will force the current schools to be either cocentratedly reformed by their district, or ignored and replaced.
>Base stats of NY and other school districts, including the recent huge jumps in spending
ReplyDeleteA biased article from a biased organization with no references or sources doesn't convince me of much.
>Some of the money 'not going to the kids' actually tracked down
This one is a little better, although the source is still biased and it doesn't contain any sourcing on the New York example. The problem is that it specifically talks about two criminals who defrauded the Long Island (not NYC) school district of a million dollars. We aren't talking about the same subject here. This has nothing to do with Bloomberg or his budget.
>More evidence of waste in NYC, negative correlation between time in American public schools and standardized test scores, and examples of success of public-funded private school systems in other countries
This article doesn't actually show evidence of waste in NYC or a negative correlation between time in American public schools and test scores. It also doesn't show evidence of "success of public-funded private school systems in other countries." What in the article suggests that this system is "private"? And it only mentions Belgium.
John Stossel? Really? One of the least principled "reporters" working in America. If you continue to get your information from biased sources that don't rely on actual valid methods of discovering information, you'll continue to have problems with your conclusions.
The reason that the U.S. does poorly on international comparisons has little to do with the quality of schools. It has more to do with two things:
1. The curriculum: If you test an American student on a topic that they have had one year of schooling in and a Belgian student on a topic that they have had three years of schooling in, who do you think will do better?
2. The dual school system: All American public school students are in the same system -- good and bad. In Europe and other wealthy countries, though, most, if not all of the poor students are in vocational schools and are not a part of the comparison. So we are comparing apples and oranges on their level of "appleness" and then calling oranges inferior. It isn't a valid measure.
>Most proponents also cite the required competition as an improvement even in public schools as well
They make this claim, but they don't back it up with evidence. We already have competition in our school system. They're called private schools. And yet they don't perform better than public schools. Considering the fact that they don't allow poor quality students admission, you could argue that private schools do worse, since they start with better students, on average, and provide the same results.
>Even the failed privatizations in MI and CA saw a spike of improvement in the public school system right before privatization took place, because the fear of private schools taking over was forcing last minute reforms.
But if these "spikes" weren't permanent, then they don't matter, do they?
>As the last site points out the US Postal service was a stagnating and poorly performing operation until the introduction of competition, and now it keeps up with it's private counterparts.
Anecdotal evidence. One example of success doesn't mean that the same thing could happen elsewhere, particularly when the two things are so difficult to compare. Universal vs. optional, minor services vs. major ones, and the fact that the quality of the input vs. output plays no role in postal delivery, among other factors that make the two almost another apples and oranges situation.
>will force the current schools to be either cocentratedly reformed by their district, or ignored and replaced.
But it is difficult, if not impossible, to reform a school with a cut budget, particularly when your best students are drained away. This type of option dooms these poor schools to failure and punishes the students left behind.