Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess the kids don't matter. So sad and so very, very wrong. If the kids are educated, they will no longer need the hand outs from the democrat party. How else can the democrats buy votes?
I guess the kids don't matter. So sad and so very, very wrong. If the kids are educated, they will no longer need the hand outs from the democrat party. How else can the democrats buy votes?
The DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 established the first federally funded private school voucher program in the United States, providing scholarships of up to $7,500 for low-income residents of the District of Columbia to send their children to local participating private schools. The law also mandated that the Department conduct an independent, rigorous evaluation of what is now called the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), to assess the impact of the program on academic achievement, school safety, and other outcomes. The impact evaluation is a randomized controlled trial that compares outcomes of eligible public school applicants randomly assigned to receive or not receive a scholarship through a series of lotteries.
The third-year report, Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After One Year, contains the following key findings:
No evidence of a statistically significant difference in test scores between students who were offered an OSP scholarship and students who were not offered a scholarship.
The program had a consistently positive impact on parent satisfaction and their perceptions of school safety.
Students who were offered OSP scholarships did not report being more satisfied with school or feeling safer in school than those without access to scholarships.
This same pattern of findings holds when the analysis is conducted to determine the impact of using a scholarship rather than being offered a scholarship, taking into account the approximately 20 percent of students who were offered but chose not to use their scholarships the first year.
So, why exactly should the program continue if it is making no appreciable difference in the performance of the students?
Groundless parental satisfaction? Not a good enough reason.
For all the sweeping rhetoric about schools of choice and how they're supposed to free low income kids from the shackles of traditional public education, multiple studies have shown that vouchers and charter schools don't improve student achievement in a statistically significant way once you account for parental education levels and other SES factors.
If you want to see actual (though in some cases modest gains) in student achievement and other life success markers, the best results seem to come from providing very high quality pre-K (and probably K-3 as well) programs to low SES children. (see Perry Preschool experiment)
The DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 established the first federally funded private school voucher program in the United States, providing scholarships of up to $7,500 for low-income residents of the District of Columbia to send their children to local participating private schools. The law also mandated that the Department conduct an independent, rigorous evaluation of what is now called the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), to assess the impact of the program on academic achievement, school safety, and other outcomes. The impact evaluation is a randomized controlled trial that compares outcomes of eligible public school applicants randomly assigned to receive or not receive a scholarship through a series of lotteries.
The third-year report, Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After One Year, contains the following key findings:
No evidence of a statistically significant difference in test scores between students who were offered an OSP scholarship and students who were not offered a scholarship.
The program had a consistently positive impact on parent satisfaction and their perceptions of school safety.
Students who were offered OSP scholarships did not report being more satisfied with school or feeling safer in school than those without access to scholarships.
This same pattern of findings holds when the analysis is conducted to determine the impact of using a scholarship rather than being offered a scholarship, taking into account the approximately 20 percent of students who were offered but chose not to use their scholarships the first year.
So, why exactly should the program continue if it is making no appreciable difference in the performance of the students?
Groundless parental satisfaction? Not a good enough reason.
Very, very interesting. Obviously, what this suggests is that vouchers will not automatically solve the problems inherent in education -- that in fact, the causes of poor education may (gasp!) NOT be the fault of any particular school, or possibly schools in general, that perhaps, at least in some (maybe most?) cases, they're making the best of a bad situation, and the causes are elsewhere -- in parents, in early education (or the lack of it), or other causes.
Very, very interesting. Obviously, what this suggests is that vouchers will not automatically solve the problems inherent in education -- that in fact, the causes of poor education may (gasp!) NOT be the fault of any particular school, or possibly schools in general, that perhaps, at least in some (maybe most?) cases, they're making the best of a bad situation, and the causes are elsewhere -- in parents, in early education (or the lack of it), or other causes.
Say it ain't so Charles.
They were all so fond of blaming teachers.
Just like the collapse of the USSR, who do they blame now?
I knew a person in college who had a 1.25 average in high school.
Could not figure out why they FAILED the first semester and did not get A's...
Bad schools and BAD teachers.??
Last edited by zthatzmanz28; 01-02-2010 at 02:54 PM..
I guess the kids don't matter. So sad and so very, very wrong. If the kids are educated, they will no longer need the hand outs from the democrat party. How else can the democrats buy votes?
Just like the collapse of the USSR, who do they blame now?
I knew a person in college who had a 1.25 average in high school.
Could not figure out why they FAILED the first semester and did not get A's...
Bad schools and BAD teachers.??
What the data suggest is that you can't replant a daisy in a petunia patch and expect it to turn into a petunia. It will, the data suggest, stay a daisy.
That being the case, at least in the data cited by the DC study, I'll take this one more (and quite unpopular) step. I apologize to my fellow teachers, who are taught quite rigorously that what I am about to say is tantamount to heresy. I swear in advance that I do not eat kittens nor plaster wet kisses over my well-laminated copies of Saddam Hussein's picture, and no, my middle name is not "Adolf."
Here's the one forbidden thought: Could there be a strong statistical correlation between poverty and below-average intelligence?
Just to be quite, quite clear, I am NOT saying, "If you're poor, you're stupid," or even "If you're stupid, you're poor." Please, please, I implore you with all due respect not to regale me/others with your own personal stories of your academic success in the face of your own poverty -- I am quite willing to grant, sight unseen, that you are entirely correct. Please also do not make assumptions about my own bottom line. For the record, though I grew up comfortably middle-class, I experienced poverty or near-poverty at a few crucial periods, and I am now a teacher, so please understand I am not speaking from a patrician position.
What I am saying is NOT a judgment of specific individuals, but I am suggesting that there may be a strong statistical correlation, just as there is (for instance) between Caucasians and cystic fibrosis: just because you are the one does not necessarily mean you are or will be the other; it's just that there's a strong correlation.
Is that clear?
If there IS a strong correlation, then what are we to do about it? Quite often as teachers, we're told that we need to prepare ALL students for college, regardless of any other circumstances -- including their grades, their behavior, their parents' wishes, their own wishes, or (the unmentionable factor) their own aptitude.
Quite honestly, I've had a number of students who absolutely would be seriously hampered, not helped, by college, but who have been told that this is essentially the only way to succeed beyond a minimum-wage job.
If the bell curve is right and 50% of us are of below-average intelligence, and the correlation between income and lower I.Q. is strong, then aren't we doing these students a grave disservice? Isn't that like telling me that I can (and should) aim to belong to the starting lineup of the Chicago Bulls when my own physiology (to say nothing of my age) strongly argues that *no* amount of practice will ever make me remotely capable of doing so?
Also, isn't that "college-or-minimum-wage" idea a false dichotomy? Isn't it the case that, for example, people make very healthy incomes doing jobs for which no college degree is required? And *without* tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to repay? Isn't it, in fact, the worst kind of elitism to imply that jobs we all need and use in society are essentially "second-best" compared to jobs one can acquire only with a college degree? Isn't "second-best" really relative to the individual and her or his abilities?
Why not have, in essence, career tracks available to students -- including careers that would be most personally and financially fulfilling to students for whom college would not be the best option? In lower-income schools, why not encourage students to pursue career apprenticeships, interning, job skills, et cetera, particularly when their own interests lead them in this direction? If given solid training, wouldn't this tend to increase the likelihood that they'd be employed -- and thus have a much better chance of breaking the cycle of poverty?
Just speculating here. I'm sure this view will not be shared by others, but I also think it's foolish to ignore any possible cause, regardless of whether it's "politically incorrect" to do so.
Here's the one forbidden thought: Could there be a strong statistical correlation between poverty and below-average intelligence?
Here's the interesting thing from the studies I've seen, Charles.
There seems to be a strong correlation between poverty and intelligence among adults, but there is a fascinating twist:
Among moderate to high SES families, there is a strong heritability factor for intelligence - to the point that using the parents' IQs to predict their children's works amazingly well.
Among the low SES families, heritability of intelligence seems to be more of a crap shoot.
******** Educational outcomes are tied very strongly to father's income - more than to any other factor - and has been for as long as the studies have been done - well over 70 years, at least. This has held even in split households and in households in which the mom had the higher income.
It holds despite father's or mother's educational attainment or that of grandparents.
Here's the interesting thing from the studies I've seen, Charles.
There seems to be a strong correlation between poverty and intelligence among adults, but there is a fascinating twist:
Among moderate to high SES families, there is a strong heritability factor for intelligence - to the point that using the parents' IQs to predict their children's works amazingly well.
Among the low SES families, heritability of intelligence seems to be more of a crap shoot.
I have a few possible reasons -- not being a statistician or a geneticist, these reasons are entirely speculative, of course, but here goes:
1. Higher income = better health care. If you're low-SES, you might have the genes for an above-average intelligence, but due to poor prenatal care, may not achieve that potential.
2. Better early childhood.
I'm taking a wild guess here and speculating that if you have more disposable income, than you can a) afford to have a parent stay home, or b) send your child to a reputable daycare/early education setting. Obviously, if you're struggling to make ends meet, you use whatever daycare you can afford, which may result in (again) potential not being developed.
I'm sure there are many other causes that may make it a "crapshoot" -- diet, possibly, or simply stability of a family life and fewer illnesses. Fascinating information.
Quote:
Educational outcomes are tied very strongly to father's income - more than to any other factor - and has been for as long as the studies have been done - well over 70 years, at least. This has held even in split households and in households in which the mom had the higher income.
It holds despite father's or mother's educational attainment or that of grandparents.
It is an annoying and pernicious fact.
Fascinating also. Does this hold roughly equal for men as well as women? That is, in a house in which the mother had the higher income, do the children (regardless of gender) have an income closer to their father's, or is there a gender separation (possibly with boys having an income like Dad's and the girls having an income like Mom's)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
