By Ornery's logic, private school students would kick the sh8t out of public school students in academic competitions. In my long experiences in attending these activities during high school, the winners are always from public schools, albeit from rich public schools (catholic schools rarely do well in these competitions). I agree that there are more administrator than necessary. But this is not true of all public schools. In addition, Ornery claims that private schools are runned better, he's assuming that all private schools are the same. Some private schools, especially rich and exclusive ones like Choate, Deerfield, Exeter, are much better than other private schools. But if you want to go to these private schools, you better have 10 $1500 vouchers a year to send one kid to these schools. Most ordinary private schools have LESS AP or Advanced classes (due to the lack of teachers qualified to teach AP and advanced subjects), LESS extracurricular activities (Band, Orchestra, Sports, Science clubs, math clubs, Thespian clubs, and many many more), and LESS involvement in academic competitions. Where do you think the money for these thing come from Ornery? The things I mentioned also apply when one compares a rich Public school vs a poor Public school; and when comparing a rich private school vs poor private school.
So far during these debates where people like Ornery claims that private schools teach their kids better than public ones, I have YET TO SEE an objective comparison between the two such as SAT scores, or other measurable academic performances. A few of these statistics exist for rich private schools (they use them in their brouchers), but these are also schools that have mandatory entrance exams. So it would be like comparing the average SAT scores of Harvard undergrads vs the SAT scores of undergrads in your local community college.
Some public schools may be failures, but the public school system overall has been very successful. Even when you look at other countries that consistently produce high quality students, they all use a public school system. However, their students are required to do more homework and at an earlier age, prohibit the use of calculators in most math classes, have longer semesters, and have mandatory summer self-learning homework. Also, in general, they have less interaction with computers. (so much for the myth that computers will teach our kids in the future.)
One other FLAW of Ornery's logic that inner city schools have the same amount of money to spend (in addition to the difference in living standards) is that it takes A LOT MORE MONEY to hire qualified teachers who are willing work in crime-ridden, crowded inner cities than nice safe suburbs. (Ask yourself Ornery, how much would they have to pay you to teach at an inner city school?) Most inner city school buildings are old and require more frequent repair from normal usage and from vandalism. And don't be fooled by Ornery's selected examples, most inner city schools receive a lot less money to spend per student.
Have you heard about the recent case in Texas on a plan to redistribute property taxes from rich districts to inner city and rural schools? Many suburban schools are suing the State to overturn this plan.
/EDIT It was not Bush's idea and he's staunch opponent of the plan.
Facebook
Twitter