Obama Admin. Stifles Favorable DC Voucher Study

[sandorski]

Looks like Bush hid it, Obama just found it then released it.

Or maybe something else.

 

[marincounty]

"Obama HIMSELF was the beneficiary of a private school scholarship, one that he credits with helping him achieve what he has achieved."

Obama got a scholarship because he was an outstanding student. So, encourage your child to do well in school and get a scholarship.

Why are righties always wanting someone else to pay for their shit?

 

[senseamp]

Obama hates black children.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama hates black children.

Some days, that is probably true.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The report was finished in the fall, but held back from release until April 3rd.

Why did they sit on it for 6 months?

So why did Bush sit on it for 4 months??

 

[Screech]

These arguments about vouchers are always fairly entertaining. It seems that different people have vastly different outlooks about the educational systems......essentially, I think the vast majority of such studies don't really teach as anything about vouchers whatsoever. The way public education and voucher-funded education REALLY work is as follows:

1) Public schools are full of the shittiest students possible. These students aren't shitty students because the school is crap, but because they were raised by their parents to either not value education, or simply weren't pushed by their parents to do well in school.

2) Obviously the above isn't true for all students in public schools. Many students do fine at "crappy" schools (my high school being such a school with low test scores, etc etc, yet I still got into a great college) because they a) aren't complete idiots and b) are pushed by parents who give a sh1t.

3) Parents who give a shit are FAR more likely to push their kids to get vouchers so their kids can go to better schools. So, if you take the better students (as students with such parents are generally much better on average) and put them all in the same schools, suddenly, you realize that these schools have students that, on the average, score better on tests and so forth.

4) Why were these schools better in the first place, you ask? The price for public education is "hidden" in taxes such that parents can let their kids go to school without really caring. Needless to say, this isn't the case where a high school education will cost you $7,000 extra or something like that; parents paying a clear extra $7,000 will make sure their kids make it worth the money. So essentially, students at these "expensive" schools will naturally be better students due to better parenting whereas public schools will have lots of terrible students since their parents don't care (or aren't around, or are too busy, etc, etc,..... I realize I'm painting with a broad brush here, some parents might be too busy, but you get the point.)

5) The above persists for some time, so that the student body present in the private school is far, far better, on the average, than that in the public school. Then, the standards for the cruddy students in the public schools are lowered (we wouldn't want to hurt anybody's feelings, now would we?). A great example of this is the California High School Exit Exam, which was one of the easiest tests I have ever taken ( Myself and most of the people I knew could have easily passed it sometime in middle school (or earlier) or the beginning of high school, but it was a high school exit exam, lol.)

When it comes down to it, public schools aren't REALLY that much crappier than others, and in fact have the potential to be just as good or better than private ones. However to do this, they have to stop teaching to the lowest common denominator which is essentially what they do now. Furthermore, most studies on vouchers compare the unmotivated kids in public schools to ones who got vouchers or were already in private schools, and these tests are terrible. This study got around this problem somewhat:

This analysis compared voucher users? test scores to those of students who requested vouchers but lost the award lottery. Among DOE?s results:

I would guess that the kids who got vouchers were really the cream of the crop and thus those who did not were already slightly higher-performing. However you would have to look at the voucher criteria, ie, was it by lottery or by review process. Anyway. if so, that could at least partially explain things such as

*While they were no better at math, voucher recipients read 3.7 months ahead of non-voucher students.

Anyway, I'm not really for vouchers or against them.....I think a much better system would just be to only allow public education for a student after some level, for instance, after middle school, if said student can perform well enough to pass a test that a student at that level should be expected to pass. This would basically screen out all the idiocy that clogs up a lot of public schools these days, at least in high school, or whatever.

 

[NeoV]

I think, if anything, PJ's education should be called into question

 

[glenn1]

Killing vouchers would save taxpayer dollars and only affects poor kids in D.C. Let the Democrats do whatever they want to their kids, why should I give a shit?

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Originally posted by: screech
These arguments about vouchers are always fairly entertaining. It seems that different people have vastly different outlooks about the educational systems......essentially, I think the vast majority of such studies don't really teach as anything about vouchers whatsoever. The way public education and voucher-funded education REALLY work is as follows:

1) Public schools are full of the shittiest students possible. These students aren't shitty students because the school is crap, but because they were raised by their parents to either not value education, or simply weren't pushed by their parents to do well in school.

2) Obviously the above isn't true for all students in public schools. Many students do fine at "crappy" schools (my high school being such a school with low test scores, etc etc, yet I still got into a great college) because they a) aren't complete idiots and b) are pushed by parents who give a sh1t.

3) Parents who give a shit are FAR more likely to push their kids to get vouchers so their kids can go to better schools. So, if you take the better students (as students with such parents are generally much better on average) and put them all in the same schools, suddenly, you realize that these schools have students that, on the average, score better on tests and so forth.

4) Why were these schools better in the first place, you ask? The price for public education is "hidden" in taxes such that parents can let their kids go to school without really caring. Needless to say, this isn't the case where a high school education will cost you $7,000 extra or something like that; parents paying a clear extra $7,000 will make sure their kids make it worth the money. So essentially, students at these "expensive" schools will naturally be better students due to better parenting whereas public schools will have lots of terrible students since their parents don't care (or aren't around, or are too busy, etc, etc,..... I realize I'm painting with a broad brush here, some parents might be too busy, but you get the point.)

5) The above persists for some time, so that the student body present in the private school is far, far better, on the average, than that in the public school. Then, the standards for the cruddy students in the public schools are lowered (we wouldn't want to hurt anybody's feelings, now would we?). A great example of this is the California High School Exit Exam, which was one of the easiest tests I have ever taken ( Myself and most of the people I knew could have easily passed it sometime in middle school (or earlier) or the beginning of high school, but it was a high school exit exam, lol.)

When it comes down to it, public schools aren't REALLY that much crappier than others, and in fact have the potential to be just as good or better than private ones. However to do this, they have to stop teaching to the lowest common denominator which is essentially what they do now. Furthermore, most studies on vouchers compare the unmotivated kids in public schools to ones who got vouchers or were already in private schools, and these tests are terrible. This study got around this problem somewhat:

This analysis compared voucher users? test scores to those of students who requested vouchers but lost the award lottery. Among DOE?s results:

I would guess that the kids who got vouchers were really the cream of the crop and thus those who did not were already slightly higher-performing. However you would have to look at the voucher criteria, ie, was it by lottery or by review process. Anyway. if so, that could at least partially explain things such as

*While they were no better at math, voucher recipients read 3.7 months ahead of non-voucher students.

Anyway, I'm not really for vouchers or against them.....I think a much better system would just be to only allow public education for a student after some level, for instance, after middle school, if said student can perform well enough to pass a test that a student at that level should be expected to pass. This would basically screen out all the idiocy that clogs up a lot of public schools these days, at least in high school, or whatever.

Well done.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: screech
-snip-

This analysis compared voucher users? test scores to those of students who requested vouchers but lost the award lottery. Among DOE?s results:

I would guess that the kids who got vouchers were really the cream of the crop and thus those who did not were already slightly higher-performing. However you would have to look at the voucher criteria, ie, was it by lottery or by review process.

Was it by lottery?

I don't know, too bad the article doesn't address that question :roll:

Vouchers are just 21st century school busing. Seems to me that they could be used as d@mn good test for how public schools are doing. Take a 'slice' of students out of public schools and give them vouchers; see what happens.

Yeah, parents have a lot to do with it. Those who bothered to apply for vouchers for their kids would seem to care moreso than others.

Fern

 

[Screech]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: screech
-snip-

This analysis compared voucher users? test scores to those of students who requested vouchers but lost the award lottery. Among DOE?s results:

I would guess that the kids who got vouchers were really the cream of the crop and thus those who did not were already slightly higher-performing. However you would have to look at the voucher criteria, ie, was it by lottery or by review process.

Was it by lottery?

I don't know, too bad the article doesn't address that question :roll:

Vouchers are just 21st century school busing. Seems to me that they could be used as d@mn good test for how public schools are doing. Take a 'slice' of students out of public schools and give them vouchers; see what happens.

Yeah, parents have a lot to do with it. Those who bothered to apply for vouchers for their kids would seem to care moreso than others.

Fern

D'oh! good find, I should read more carefully. (also, more editage)

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Because vouchers are a taxpayer provided subsidy for segregated, religious education and anyone denying that is simply full of shit? Vouchers are used primarily to send white, evangelical kids to private schools. Using inner city black children as the poster children for voucher system is particularly hypocritical.

God forbid the parents determine what's best for their children. That role should be left up to the State.

Parents have the choice to send their kids to private schools. They just have to pay for it.

If people are allowed to use vouchers to pay for private school, then, since we have no children in the public school system, we should be exempt from paying for school bonds and taxes.
Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

That is a nieve and selfish way to approach this.....
A system is in place that almost everyone pays into -- Public School system.
You don`t have to send your kids to a public school but if you do send your kids to a private school it`s ONLY fair that you continue to pay into the system that is in place -- Public schools...seems fair to me!!

So, it seems perfectly "fair" to you that parents are forced to pay their money into a crappy school system (like in DC), such that they can't afford to send their kids to a private school? Yeah, that's fair, everyone who's poor in DC can forget about an option to get their kids a good education. Those who have money (hi there Mr. senator/congressman/lobbyist!) make sure their kids are not trapped in the 'wonderful' hell-hole public schools.

I don't know about the merits of this particular study or it's conclusion, but the truth is that the politicos don't give a crap about the people or the education, just about their political and financial backers. The teachers unions are a big part of the democrat's support system, so the democrats will do whatever the unions want, even if it hurts the people.

The republicans had plenty of time to fix the situation when they had the majority in congress and Bush in the white house. They did not do it, so big fail there as well.

 

[lupi]

Outside of someone not caring about walking on PC eggshells and doing real education reform, vouchers is by far the best solution out there. And so what if the system becomes a great success and many kids ditch public schools for it. Simply redistrict the public zones, close the extra buildings, and layoff the poorer performing teachers. Kids get better schooling and the people pay less taxes, win all around.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: screech
These arguments about vouchers are always fairly entertaining. It seems that different people have vastly different outlooks about the educational systems......essentially, I think the vast majority of such studies don't really teach as anything about vouchers whatsoever. The way public education and voucher-funded education REALLY work is as follows:

1) Public schools are full of the shittiest students possible. These students aren't shitty students because the school is crap, but because they were raised by their parents to either not value education, or simply weren't pushed by their parents to do well in school.

2) Obviously the above isn't true for all students in public schools. Many students do fine at "crappy" schools (my high school being such a school with low test scores, etc etc, yet I still got into a great college) because they a) aren't complete idiots and b) are pushed by parents who give a sh1t.

3) Parents who give a shit are FAR more likely to push their kids to get vouchers so their kids can go to better schools. So, if you take the better students (as students with such parents are generally much better on average) and put them all in the same schools, suddenly, you realize that these schools have students that, on the average, score better on tests and so forth.

4) Why were these schools better in the first place, you ask? The price for public education is "hidden" in taxes such that parents can let their kids go to school without really caring. Needless to say, this isn't the case where a high school education will cost you $7,000 extra or something like that; parents paying a clear extra $7,000 will make sure their kids make it worth the money. So essentially, students at these "expensive" schools will naturally be better students due to better parenting whereas public schools will have lots of terrible students since their parents don't care (or aren't around, or are too busy, etc, etc,..... I realize I'm painting with a broad brush here, some parents might be too busy, but you get the point.)

5) The above persists for some time, so that the student body present in the private school is far, far better, on the average, than that in the public school. Then, the standards for the cruddy students in the public schools are lowered (we wouldn't want to hurt anybody's feelings, now would we?). A great example of this is the California High School Exit Exam, which was one of the easiest tests I have ever taken ( Myself and most of the people I knew could have easily passed it sometime in middle school (or earlier) or the beginning of high school, but it was a high school exit exam, lol.)

When it comes down to it, public schools aren't REALLY that much crappier than others, and in fact have the potential to be just as good or better than private ones. However to do this, they have to stop teaching to the lowest common denominator which is essentially what they do now. Furthermore, most studies on vouchers compare the unmotivated kids in public schools to ones who got vouchers or were already in private schools, and these tests are terrible. This study got around this problem somewhat:

This analysis compared voucher users? test scores to those of students who requested vouchers but lost the award lottery. Among DOE?s results:

I would guess that the kids who got vouchers were really the cream of the crop and thus those who did not were already slightly higher-performing. However you would have to look at the voucher criteria, ie, was it by lottery or by review process. Anyway. if so, that could at least partially explain things such as

*While they were no better at math, voucher recipients read 3.7 months ahead of non-voucher students.

Anyway, I'm not really for vouchers or against them.....I think a much better system would just be to only allow public education for a student after some level, for instance, after middle school, if said student can perform well enough to pass a test that a student at that level should be expected to pass. This would basically screen out all the idiocy that clogs up a lot of public schools these days, at least in high school, or whatever.

Cliffs:
-Better parenting = better school performance, especially where parents are willing to put their cash down for their kids to have a better education.
-comparing voucher kids to public kids is not a fair assessment because voucher kids are deemed special and thus more likely to perform better.

Conclusion: Vouchers work better because kids are more motivated from a personal and parental point of view.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Because vouchers are a taxpayer provided subsidy for segregated, religious education and anyone denying that is simply full of shit? Vouchers are used primarily to send white, evangelical kids to private schools. Using inner city black children as the poster children for voucher system is particularly hypocritical.

God forbid the parents determine what's best for their children. That role should be left up to the State.

Parents have the choice to send their kids to private schools. They just have to pay for it.

If people are allowed to use vouchers to pay for private school, then, since we have no children in the public school system, we should be exempt from paying for school bonds and taxes.
Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

That is a nieve and selfish way to approach this.....
A system is in place that almost everyone pays into -- Public School system.
You don`t have to send your kids to a public school but if you do send your kids to a private school it`s ONLY fair that you continue to pay into the system that is in place -- Public schools...seems fair to me!!

I just don't see how that even seems fair, forcing people to pay into a system that they don't use, simply because the system is there. Actually, what a great system that would be - having the populace elect which government programs they support, by having the populace physically choose on a form where they want their tax dollars spent! You pay the same tax amount, but you choose to distribute it as you wish, say 25% going to military, 50% going towards medicare, and 25% towards infrastructure. Eliminate the middle man, and let the people vote with their pocket books.

The solution to public education is simple. Look at countries that have good public education, and copy what they do.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I just don't see how that even seems fair, forcing people to pay into a system that they don't use, simply because the system is there. Actually, what a great system that would be - having the populace elect which government programs they support, by having the populace physically choose on a form where they want their tax dollars spent! You pay the same tax amount, but you choose to distribute it as you wish, say 25% going to military, 50% going towards medicare, and 25% towards infrastructure. Eliminate the middle man, and let the people vote with their pocket books.

This is actually a good idea Triumph. Except what happens if everyone just chose the "military" program? Maybe have current officials decide which get priority over others in case a programs "caps" out and then you reallocate those funds into the next important category.

 

[Fern]

It has ocurred to me that vouchers have another very good use:

In our school district we're having an over crowding problem. State law mandates a limit on students per classroom. Over the past few years we've had a huge influx of immigrants (legal and otherwise) and it's put a huge strain on our public school system; we can't build schools fast enough.

Building new schools is very very expensive and takes a years (find the land, widen roads due to increased tarffic at peak hours, get blueprints, get bids for construction, figure out financing, voting on bonds etc).

I think a good solution, if only temporary, is to use vouchers to send willing kids over to private schools that have room. That will take the strain off our public schools immediately and is likely less costly than the alternative.

Stacking crappy looking trailors next to the existing schools is our only other (short-term)option, and they are very unpopular (parents always complain when their kids in trailors).

We need to use vouchers here to help with our overcrowding problem.

Fern

 

[Snoop]

It seems ironic the voucher program is being ended essentially to stem the outflow of money from the public school system. Yet, the people charged with rescinding the vouchers choose to send their children to the private schools. IMO, if you think the public schools are fine for everybody else, and you support the teachers union, shouldn't you follow your principles and put your children into the system you fervently support?

Jimmy Carter put his kids in the public schools, why are Obama's children not utilizing the system he supports?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
More proof that Obama is full of crap, and in so many ways.

1. Obama promised "an unprecedented level of openness in Government" and yet they hide this report about the success of this school voucher system.

2. Obama said ?You do what works for the kids" and yet he let this popular program die without a peep.

3. Obama sends his girls to Sidwell Friends a private school that participated in this program. I guess offering poor children the same education as his daughters isn't as important as keeping the teachers union happy. BTW the school cost $28,000+ per year.

4. Obama HIMSELF was the beneficiary of a private school scholarship, one that he credits with helping him achieve what he has achieved. Again, I guess the concerns of the teachers unions are more important than helping poor children trapped in the DC school system.

Pathetic on all levels. And you wonder why so many people on the right are anti-union.
link

Despite being ?a skeptic of vouchers,? candidate Barack Obama promised this would not prevent him from ?making sure that our kids can learn.? As he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, ?You do what works for the kids.?

Last January 21, his first full day in office, President Obama declared, ?My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.?

Just 10 weeks later, Obama has broken both these promises. And poor-but-promising minority kids suffer the consequences.

These 1,714 children -- 90 percent black and 9 percent Hispanic -- enjoy the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. They each receive up to $7,500 for private or parochial schools outside Washington, D.C.?s dismal government-education system. Since its 2004 launch, 7,852 students have applied for these grants, or more than four children per voucher.

This program?s popularity notwithstanding, Obama stayed silent as Congress scheduled this initiative?s demise after the 2009 -- 2010 academic year. Both a Democratic Congress and DC authorities must reauthorize the program -- not likely.

Now it emerges that Obama?s Department of Education (DOE) possessed peer-reviewed, Congressionally mandated, research proving this program?s success. Though it demonstrates ?what works for the kids,? DOE hid this study until Congress squelched these children?s dreams.

This analysis compared voucher users? test scores to those of students who requested vouchers but lost the award lottery. Among DOE?s results:

*While they were no better at math, voucher recipients read 3.7 months ahead of non-voucher students.

*Student subgroups -- including high achievers, those from functional schools, and applicants between Kindergarten and grade 8 -- showed ?1/3 to 2 years of additional learning growth.?

*While 63 percent of non-voucher parents gave their kids? schools As or Bs, 74 percent of voucher parents so rated their children?s campuses.

This good news remained concealed, from the study?s conclusion last fall, through March?s Congressional debate, until April 3, when DOE finally released this report. That was a Friday afternoon, precisely when news whisperers issue stories they want journalists to miss in the mad dash for the weekend and citizens to overlook as Saturday?s papers vanish beneath ski equipment, movie tickets, and pitchers of beer.

Worse yet, DOE researchers reportedly were forbidden to publicize or discuss their findings. ?You?d think we were talking about nuclear secrets, not about a taxpayer-funded pilot program,? the April 5 Wall Street Journal editorialized.

For Team Obama, this is transparency we can believe in.

One expects better from Obama who won a scholarship at age 10 to attend Hawaii?s prestigious, private Punahou school. ?There was something about this school that embraced me, gave me support and encouragement, and allowed me to grow and prosper,? Obama has said.

DC voucher recipients want such life chances. If you want to bawl like a baby, visit VoicesOfSchoolChoice.org and watch the Internet?s most inspirational and simultaneously heartbreaking video.

?In my old public school, people screamed at the teacher, walked out of school during class, hurt me, and made fun of all my friends,? says Paul, age 11, imploring Obama to keep hope alive. ?I love going to school, where I can learn and be safe,? says Breanna, 9. ?I want to go to Morehouse College, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,? says De?Andre, 9. ?I am going to grow up and be a good man.?

With young black kids themselves begging for vouchers, why would reputedly pro-poor, pro-black Democrats kill this popular and effective school-choice program?

Follow the money: Teachers? unions? paid $55,794,440 in political donations between 1990 and 2008, 96 percent of it to Democrats. Senator John Ensign?s (R ? Nevada) March 10 amendment to rescue DC?s vouchers failed 39-58. Among 57 Democrats voting, 54 (or 95 percent) opposed DC vouchers.

As the late Albert Shanker, former American Federation of Teachers president, once said: ?When school children start paying union dues, that?s when I?ll start representing the interests of school children.?

When poor, black school kids start making political donations, Democratic politicians will start fighting for them.

Time to unsubscribe to your neocon think-tank newsletters, Poofjohn.

These are kids we are talking about not political pawns.


The bottom line the kids that used them and those schools want them and no those kids will suffer. Funny thing is the $ spent on these kids is much more efficiently spent for BETTER education. So where is the logic ending that? Better Education for less money?


Change is not always good.