Nothing to Brag About
If I read the wonderfully titled report Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling correctly, there is virtually no difference between the math and reading test scores of public and private school students when corrected for various characteristics of students, teachers and schools.
This is bad news for private schools (and when the same results exist for charters, for them as well). If you are going to sell yourself as the superior alternative to traditional public schools, you have to produce results. Reading and math scores on the NAEP tests are excellent measures of academic results, though -- as my friends at NEA and AFT always tell me -- not the only measures.
National Education Association President Reg Weaver was correct when he told the New York Times that had the results been different, "there would have been press conferences and glowing statements about private schools."
Where Reg went wrong, however, was when he said that the results showed public schools were "doing an outstanding job." Standardized test scores are the measures used by the bad guys -- you know, people like me -- to evaluate schools. What about all the measures the unions claim are important?
Private schools spend about two-thirds what public schools spend.
Private school teachers make about two-thirds what public school teachers make, with nowhere near the same benefits.
Private schools have fewer certified teachers, fewer teachers with a master's degree or better, and fewer teachers with more than three years' teaching experience.
Though I have no data for this, I also suspect that private school teachers have fewer opportunities for teacher training and professional development.
What about all those tiny private school class sizes? There are no comparable class size statistics available for public or private schools, but student/teacher ratio should suffice. In 2001, the ratio was 15.9 for public schools, 15.2 for private. That's a small advantage for private schools, but since 1989 the ratio for public schools was reduced by 1.3 students, while the private school ratio increased by 1.4 students.
The report is bad news for private schools, but how much worse is it for public schools? After spending much more money on schools, teachers, advanced degrees, experience, training, certification, and class size reduction, the best the public school system can do is match the private school system in reading and math?
If you're fighting privatization, you shouldn't be cheering when the private sector provides the same service with the same results from the same students -- at a 33% discount. That is not a winning argument.
This is bad news for private schools (and when the same results exist for charters, for them as well). If you are going to sell yourself as the superior alternative to traditional public schools, you have to produce results. Reading and math scores on the NAEP tests are excellent measures of academic results, though -- as my friends at NEA and AFT always tell me -- not the only measures.
National Education Association President Reg Weaver was correct when he told the New York Times that had the results been different, "there would have been press conferences and glowing statements about private schools."
Where Reg went wrong, however, was when he said that the results showed public schools were "doing an outstanding job." Standardized test scores are the measures used by the bad guys -- you know, people like me -- to evaluate schools. What about all the measures the unions claim are important?
Private schools spend about two-thirds what public schools spend.
Private school teachers make about two-thirds what public school teachers make, with nowhere near the same benefits.
Private schools have fewer certified teachers, fewer teachers with a master's degree or better, and fewer teachers with more than three years' teaching experience.
Though I have no data for this, I also suspect that private school teachers have fewer opportunities for teacher training and professional development.
What about all those tiny private school class sizes? There are no comparable class size statistics available for public or private schools, but student/teacher ratio should suffice. In 2001, the ratio was 15.9 for public schools, 15.2 for private. That's a small advantage for private schools, but since 1989 the ratio for public schools was reduced by 1.3 students, while the private school ratio increased by 1.4 students.
The report is bad news for private schools, but how much worse is it for public schools? After spending much more money on schools, teachers, advanced degrees, experience, training, certification, and class size reduction, the best the public school system can do is match the private school system in reading and math?
If you're fighting privatization, you shouldn't be cheering when the private sector provides the same service with the same results from the same students -- at a 33% discount. That is not a winning argument.
Instead of saying that private schools represent a 33% discount on public schools, you can look at the flip side and say that public schools cost 50% more than private schools.
Same numbers, different calculation - who says math can't be practical and fun?
Posted by
Anonymous |
July 17, 2006 11:59 AM
I agree with a lot of what you've written about teacher quality and pay in private schools. I also agree that test results are, by far, not the only measure of the quality of a child's education.
What you haven't said here is that every single child in a private school has proactive parents. If you ask me (and I realize you haven't), that's the most important predictor of a child's success, or lack thereof, in school.
I'd also say that kids who lack concerned parents are those most in need of the very best teachers, lower class sizes, and facilities that reflect a belief that education is important.
For kids, positive adult role models are an absolute must. For kids who lack them, they're even more crucial--the second best chance these kids are gonna get.
Posted by
NYC Educator |
July 18, 2006 7:29 AM
You'll get no argument from me on parental motivation and involvement. I will, however, suggest something that rarely appears in analyses of student achievement: the responsibility of the individual student.
Of course we're all products of our parents -- for good and/or ill. And we're all products of our teachers and the schools we attended. But we're all individuals as well, even when we were kids.
We're not malleable balls of clay to be shaped into proper educated and informed citizens by ANYONE. The kids can choose to pay attention in class, or not. The kids can choose to study, or not. The kids can choose to behave in class, or not.
I'm sure you know that teachers are frustrated with parents' failures to hold their own kids accountable, and often teachers fail the "tough love" test with their students.
That's not meant to minimize the family and socioeconomic problems faced by inner-city students. But we either overcome our problems or are buried by them. The "every child can learn" mantra requires the active participation of the child.
Posted by
Mike Antonucci |
July 18, 2006 8:01 AM
The difference is that parental involvment is valued in a private/charter school setting almost without exception.
How many parents will pay twice to send their kid to private school or go to the extra effort and bother that comes with a child in a charter school and then except anything other then clear respect for their concerns and opinions? Anthing less and the decision to send junior to this particular private/charter school looks like a bad one. Give enough parents a reason to question their decision and the school is history.
Contrast the value placed on parental involvement in district-based public schools. That value is entirely a function of the particular school/district.
One school places a high value on parental involvement and makes it damned good and clear they do. Another school barely tolerates bake sales let alone more substantive parental involvment, preferring lip service too the concept, and then there's all the schools somewhere in between.
Private/charter schools, by their nature, ignore or demean parental involvment at their peril. District-based school value parental involvement if there's someone at the school values parental involvement out of a sense of responsibility or professionalism. When that person moves on, respect for parental involvement goes with them.
Posted by
allen |
July 18, 2006 11:30 AM
Mike,
I agree with every word you wrote. I do think, though, that we can influence and encourage acceptable behavior in kids, and that good teachers do it far better than bad ones.
And kids in my class who choose not to behave will find that to be a very inconvenient choice. I will make it my mission in life to find out what makes that kid miserable and make sure it happens on a daily basis, I kid you not. I'm not bragging that I'm a good teacher, because there's something more to that.
Really, no learning whatsoever can take place anywhere a teacher is not in control. And it's the job of kids everywhere to test the patience of adults.
Allen,
I can't speak for every teacher, but I value and encourage parental involvement, and I will force the issue when necessary, as it's key to my classroom management.
I think parental involvement is beneficial to all schools, everywhere, public, private, whatever.
Posted by
NYC Educator |
July 18, 2006 12:50 PM
nyc educator:
Case in point then. You may encourage, support, insist, value parental involvement but there's nothing inherent to the district-based public education system that places a value on parental involvement. That's contrasted by schools too which parents choose to send their kids, be they charters or private.
If a choice school doesn't eradicate sneering condescension or disregard on the part of a teacher or principal then the school, if things get bad enough, gets awarded the Darwin prize and becomes an object of interest to only educational paleontologists. A district-based school, or an entire district, can ignore parental involvement as evidenced by the percentage of illiterates graduated by every large, municipal school district.
I reject without comment the notion that parents could be involved to any significant degree in their child's education and idly stand by while their child marches toward graduation without the ability to read.
Ooops. Gotta go. More later.
Posted by
allen |
July 19, 2006 6:15 AM
Post a Comment