Education Myths

[Annie]

For sure:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.19233/article_detail.asp

Education Myths
By Jay Greene

Myths aren't lies. They are beliefs that people adopt because they have an air of plausibility. But myths aren't true, and they often get in the way during serious problem-solving. This essay identifies seven common myths that dominate established views of education these days. Dispelling these misconceptions could open the door to long-awaited improvement in our nationÍs schools.

The money myth...
The teacher pay myth...
The myth of insurmountable problems...
The class size myth...
The certification myth...
The rich-school myth...
The myth of ineffective school vouchers...

Spread the truth

Over the past 30 years, many of our education policies have been based on beliefs that clear-eyed research has recently shown to be false. Virtually every area of school functioning has been distorted by entrenched myths. Disentangling popular misconceptions from our education system--and establishing fresh policies based on facts that are supported by hard evidence--will be the work of at least a generation.

That work will be especially difficult because powerful interest groups with reasons to protect and extend the prevailing mythology will oppose any rethinking. But with time, and diligent effort by truth-tellers, reality and reason have triumphed over mythology in many other fields. There is no reason they can't prevail in schoolhouses as well.

 

[jasendorf]

For sure:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.19233/article_detail.asp

A deceptive article by an extremely biased writer. I particularly like the line, "Few question that vouchers help the students who use them to leave failing public schools for a private school." Really? "Few"?

The writer's compartmentalization of each problem is a major flaw with his assertions. To assume that each of the supposed myths he addresses exists in a vaccuum is not only intellectually dishonest, but further proof of his bias on the subject. The writer has the air of a flat-Earth scientist where he points out little tidbits of semi-truth and cherry picks studies to find what he wants to find and then claims some kind of false victory.

His assumption that national averages somehow address issues faced by individual communities is not only nonsensical, but not even valid. To say the national average for XYZ proves that Smith Elementary in Walawala doesn't have a certain challenge is the epitomy of oversimplification. Unfortunately, neocons will read this article and automatically assume that their school district doesn't face any of the issues he addresses simply because of some "national average."

Do voucher schools have better scoring students? They damned sure better! The basis of a voucher school education starts with a parent who cares about their student's education and is willing to act to make it happen. In turn, this means that voucher students are, by definition, the children of parents who will take action to help their child advance academically. With that kind of advantage, voucher schools should count themselves lucky.

 

[Annie]

A deceptive article by an extremely biased writer. I particularly like the line, "Few question that vouchers help the students who use them to leave failing public schools for a private school." Really? "Few"?

The writer's compartmentalization of each problem is a major flaw with his assertions. To assume that each of the supposed myths he addresses exists in a vaccuum is not only intellectually dishonest, but further proof of his bias on the subject. The writer has the air of a flat-Earth scientist where he points out little tidbits of semi-truth and cherry picks studies to find what he wants to find and then claims some kind of false victory.

His assumption that national averages somehow address issues faced by individual communities is not only nonsensical, but not even valid. To say the national average for XYZ proves that Smith Elementary in Walawala doesn't have a certain challenge is the epitomy of oversimplification. Unfortunately, neocons will read this article and automatically assume that their school district doesn't face any of the issues he addresses simply because of some "national average."

Do voucher schools have better scoring students? They damned sure better!

Are your reading disabled? The results of the studies were given.

The basis of a voucher school education starts with a parent who cares about their student's education and is willing to act to make it happen. In turn, this means that voucher students are, by definition, the children of parents who will take action to help their child advance academically. With that kind of advantage, voucher schools should count themselves lucky.

Biased? I don't think so:

Dr. Jay P. Greene

Dr. Jay P. Greene is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in New York, NY. He has conducted evaluations of school-choice programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and San Antonio. He also has investigated the effects of school choice on civic values and integration. His publications include the chapters, "Civic Values in Public and Private Schools," and "School Choice in Milwaukee: A Randomized Experiment," in the book, Learning from School Choice, published by the Brookings Institution in 1998; "The Effect of Private Education on Political Participation, Social Capital, and Tolerance," in the fall 1999 issue of The Georgetown Public Policy Review; and "The Texas School Miracle Is for Real," in the summer 2000 issue of City Journal.

Greene is also a research associate at the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance and the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. He has been a professor of government at the University of Texas and the University of Houston. He received his Ph.D. from the government department at Harvard University.

http://www.mackinac.org/bio.aspx?ID=205

Now, I don't know where your expertise lies, though I'll infer that you are saying since some parents, who couldn't afford private schools, care enough to tackle the red tape of getting their children the vouchers, are probably involved with their children's homework, doing the etc. that good parents do, they should be denied the opportunity because there are other parents that don't give a shi*...

 

[jasendorf]

Are your reading disabled? The results of the studies were given.

And, I believe I addressed his analysis of those studies when I said, "The writer has the air of a flat-Earth scientist where he points out little tidbits of semi-truth and cherry picks studies to find what he wants to find and then claims some kind of false victory." Who's reading-disabled here? Do I need to use smaller words for you?

Biased? I don't think so:

http://www.mackinac.org/bio.aspx?ID=205

Yeah, no bias from a "senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research"... let's take a quick jaunt over to their site and see what he's senior fellowing about...

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/about_mi.htm

After a quote from Rudy Giuliani... we see their goal:

"For over 25 years, the Manhattan Institute has been an important force in shaping American political culture. We have supported and publicized research on our era’s most challenging public policy issues: taxes, welfare, crime, the legal system, urban life, race, education, and many other topics. We have won new respect for market-oriented policies and helped make reform a reality.

We have cultivated a staff of senior fellows and writers who blend intellectual rigor, sound principles, and strong writing ability. Their provocative books, reviews, interviews, speeches, articles, and op-ed pieces have been the main vehicle for communicating our message."

But, just because he's a pimp for "market-oriented policies" doesn't mean he's biased towards vouchers...

Now, I don't know where your expertise lies, though I'll infer that you are saying since some parents, who couldn't afford private schools, care enough to tackle the red tape of getting their children the vouchers, are probably involved with their children's homework, doing the etc. that good parents do, they should be denied the opportunity because there are other parents that don't give a shi*...

I'm the son, husband and son-in-law of teachers. So, I have no expertise other than 35 years of watching my mother and wife toil late into the night and fret over how every single one of their students is doing... most times fretting the most over the ones who care the least. My mom set up a presentation for parents of sophomores so they could know what to expect for the state-wide exams and how they could help their child succeed. 300 sophomores' parents got a letter about the presentation. Guess how many showed up? 15 maybe? 30 maybe? Try ZERO. So, you'll have to excuse me when I don't buy Dr. Greene's self-designed "Teachability Index" study where he determined what he wanted to show and used his flawed methods to compare Texas kids to Louisiana kids. (I wonder if he factored into his "Teachability Index" the average worth attriubted to education by Latino parents vs. Cajun parents...).



As for my position on vouchers... it's simple. I'm all for vouchers if they actually will do what they promise... but, they don't. If we want to properly evaluate for-profit schools, they must have similar rules as public schools to make a valid comparison. This is all I ask:

1) Vouchers will be equal to the average cost of educating a similarly aged student in the same public school district.

2) Voucher/charter schools must accept any student who fits the voucher school's age demographic and is within a similar distance as a nearby public school. If there are more applications than slots available, they must hold a lottery of applicants.

3) They must keep all of the students they accept and not simply dump the ones they don't want back onto the public school system.

4) They must participate in the same NCLB-mandated testing as their public school counterparts as dictated by the individual states in which they are located.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see a voucher system which has these safeguards for valid comparison in place. As it stands right now, the public schools have been and continue to be unfairly vilified by "open-market" profiteers who use the self-fulfilling prophecy of voucher systems' "reforms" to skim tax payers' money into their pockets.

 

[dmp]

Dorf: For the 503rd time, 2 + 2 = 4. I promise.

 

[Annie]

And, I believe I addressed his analysis of those studies when I said, "The writer has the air of a flat-Earth scientist where he points out little tidbits of semi-truth and cherry picks studies to find what he wants to find and then claims some kind of false victory." Who's reading-disabled here? Do I need to use smaller words for you?

Ok, so you don't wish to look at the studies. Fine.

Yeah, no bias from a "senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research"... let's take a quick jaunt over to their site and see what he's senior fellowing about...

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/about_mi.htm

After a quote from Rudy Giuliani... we see their goal:

"For over 25 years, the Manhattan Institute has been an important force in shaping American political culture. We have supported and publicized research on our era’s most challenging public policy issues: taxes, welfare, crime, the legal system, urban life, race, education, and many other topics. We have won new respect for market-oriented policies and helped make reform a reality.

We have cultivated a staff of senior fellows and writers who blend intellectual rigor, sound principles, and strong writing ability. Their provocative books, reviews, interviews, speeches, articles, and op-ed pieces have been the main vehicle for communicating our message."

But, just because he's a pimp for "market-oriented policies" doesn't mean he's biased towards vouchers...

Biased is not the correct word, IMO. I would suggest 'convinced' that vouchers are an alternative, that IMO, should be restricted to use only for those that pass a 'means test' and qualify for the alternative school's criteria.

I'm the son, husband and son-in-law of teachers. So, I have no expertise other than 35 years of watching my mother and wife toil late into the night and fret over how every single one of their students is doing... most times fretting the most over the ones who care the least. My mom set up a presentation for parents of sophomores so they could know what to expect for the state-wide exams and how they could help their child succeed. 300 sophomores' parents got a letter about the presentation. Guess how many showed up? 15 maybe? 30 maybe? Try ZERO. So, you'll have to excuse me when I don't buy Dr. Greene's self-designed "Teachability Index" study where he determined what he wanted to show and used his flawed methods to compare Texas kids to Louisiana kids. (I wonder if he factored into his "Teachability Index" the average worth attriubted to education by Latino parents vs. Cajun parents...).

That's not expertise, but what the heck. Where are the flaws in the study, in your opinion? When it comes to 'education studies' if you've read my posts, you will find I'm probably the harshest critic of the US education system in universities around here.

As for my position on vouchers... it's simple. I'm all for vouchers if they actually will do what they promise... but, they don't. If we want to properly evaluate for-profit schools, they must have similar rules as public schools to make a valid comparison. This is all I ask:

1) Vouchers will be equal to the average cost of educating a similarly aged student in the same public school district.

To the best of my knowledge, they are always lower than the cost per child in home school building.

2) Voucher/charter schools must accept any student who fits the voucher school's age demographic and is within a similar distance as a nearby public school. If there are more applications than slots available, they must hold a lottery of applicants.

So it's just another public school, that's NOT the idea or what desperate parents are looking for.

3) They must keep all of the students they accept and not simply dump the ones they don't want back onto the public school system.

See above

4) They must participate in the same NCLB-mandated testing as their public school counterparts as dictated by the individual states in which they are located.

Agree.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see a voucher system which has these safeguards for valid comparison in place. As it stands right now, the public schools have been and continue to be unfairly vilified by "open-market" profiteers who use the self-fulfilling prophecy of voucher systems' "reforms" to skim tax payers' money into their pockets.

Some want to improve opportunities, some want everyone to sink 'together.'

 

[manu1959]

A deceptive article by an extremely biased writer. I particularly like the line, "Few question that vouchers help the students who use them to leave failing public schools for a private school." Really? "Few"?

The writer's compartmentalization of each problem is a major flaw with his assertions. To assume that each of the supposed myths he addresses exists in a vaccuum is not only intellectually dishonest, but further proof of his bias on the subject. The writer has the air of a flat-Earth scientist where he points out little tidbits of semi-truth and cherry picks studies to find what he wants to find and then claims some kind of false victory.

His assumption that national averages somehow address issues faced by individual communities is not only nonsensical, but not even valid. To say the national average for XYZ proves that Smith Elementary in Walawala doesn't have a certain challenge is the epitomy of oversimplification. Unfortunately, neocons will read this article and automatically assume that their school district doesn't face any of the issues he addresses simply because of some "national average."

Do voucher schools have better scoring students? They damned sure better! The basis of a voucher school education starts with a parent who cares about their student's education and is willing to act to make it happen. In turn, this means that voucher students are, by definition, the children of parents who will take action to help their child advance academically. With that kind of advantage, voucher schools should count themselves lucky.

so you believe the myths are indisputable facts and there is no shred of truth in the study....

good for you for sticking to your belief system….

 

[GotZoom]

Dorf: For the 503rd time, 2 + 2 = 4. I promise.

He's not going to believe it unless you show him a link from a non-con source.

 

[jasendorf]

Ok, so you don't wish to look at the studies. Fine.

Hunt down a bunch of studies hand-picked to buoy this guy's position? Figures lie and liars figure. I've got a pair of eyes thanks.

Biased is not the correct word, IMO. I would suggest 'convinced' that vouchers are an alternative, that IMO, should be restricted to use only for those that pass a 'means test' and qualify for the alternative school's criteria.

OK, so he's already convinced and doing studies designed to prove what he's already convinced of, uh... but you wouldn't call it bias. Alrighty... call it whatever you like. I say that his POV and "research" is tinged by his already decided outsome. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's not expertise, but what the heck.

Perhaps you missed the point where I said, "I have no expertise..."? Still want to talk about my reading comprehension?

Where are the flaws in the study, in your opinion? When it comes to 'education studies' if you've read my posts, you will find I'm probably the harshest critic of the US education system in universities around here.

My problem is that he approached his study from the point of attempting to prove what he already believed instead of attempting to discover what the truth is. You yourself have said have called him "convinced." Anyone already pre-convinced of something makes a very poor researcher on the subject. How am I to know that he didn't find one thing and then change his methods or numbers just enough to make them show what he wanted them to show?

To the best of my knowledge, they are always lower than the cost per child in home school building.

But it would be necessary to up that amount to accomodate the rest of my suggestion for making the competition competitive.

So it's just another public school, that's NOT the idea or what desperate parents are looking for. See above

So, let me get this straight... your article goes on and on and on and on comparing voucher students to public school students... states that vouchers get "better performances, happier parents, for about half the cost"... well of course they do it for "half the cost"... when you can turn away those students which incur the greatest bulk of the "average cost" you can obviously educate a subgroup which enters with no special needs for less. But, even though Dr. Greene's article goes on for paragraph after paragraph comparing the two... you're now saying they're apples and oranges? Why'd you post the article?

Some want to improve opportunities, some want everyone to sink 'together.'

Now you've gone off the deep end. Who are these people who want all children to "sink together"? Name names if you're going to make that accusation.

 

[jasendorf]

so you believe the myths are indisputable facts and there is no shred of truth in the study....

good for you for sticking to your belief system….

Did I use words that are too big for you? I think his bias makes his "studies" suspect. There, no word over two syllables... get it now?

 

[jasendorf]

He's not going to believe it unless you show him a link from a non-con source.

Got anything to add to the topic?

 

[manu1959]

Did I use words that are too big for you? I think his bias makes his "studies" suspect. There, no word over two syllables... get it now?

very well structured reponse....did you realise that his studies actually spported a couple of the myths? or did you not read it? do you kiss your wife with that mouth?

 

[Annie]

Hunt down a bunch of studies hand-picked to buoy this guy's position? Figures lie and liars figure. I've got a pair of eyes thanks.



OK, so he's already convinced and doing studies designed to prove what he's already convinced of, uh... but you wouldn't call it bias. Alrighty... call it whatever you like. I say that his POV and "research" is tinged by his already decided outsome. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.




Perhaps you missed the point where I said, "I have no expertise..."? Still want to talk about my reading comprehension?



My problem is that he approached his study from the point of attempting to prove what he already believed instead of attempting to discover what the truth is. You yourself have said have called him "convinced." Anyone already pre-convinced of something makes a very poor researcher on the subject. How am I to know that he didn't find one thing and then change his methods or numbers just enough to make them show what he wanted them to show?



But it would be necessary to up that amount to accomodate the rest of my suggestion for making the competition competitive.



So, let me get this straight... your article goes on and on and on and on comparing voucher students to public school students... states that vouchers get "better performances, happier parents, for about half the cost"... well of course they do it for "half the cost"... when you can turn away those students which incur the greatest bulk of the "average cost" you can obviously educate a subgroup which enters with no special needs for less. But, even though Dr. Greene's article goes on for paragraph after paragraph comparing the two... you're now saying they're apples and oranges? Why'd you post the article?



Now you've gone off the deep end. Who are these people who want all children to "sink together"? Name names if you're going to make that accusation.

Vouchers are used to provide an alternative placement for parents that do not want their children to attend the 'home school.' An opportunity they could not provide without the aid. Could be for any number of reasons the parents are willing to go for the voucher, but it's usually that the home school is not providing an environment for learning.

Vouchers and charter schools, different responses to the same problems, have lots of studies that show they do work well. On the other hand, there are other studies; surprise, surprise, conducted by education departments of universities, that show little or no differences. Of course these would be by 'unbiased' researchers in your opinion? Maybe NEA could get involved in some unbiased research?

Your logic of turning 'private schools' into public, by nature of vouchers is just laughable. The parents do not want the problems that the public schools are creating, especially in the inner city. You are saying that they must 'take all' undermining the ability to improve the education process.

Perhaps a better idea would be to track BD, special ed, and gifted students seperately? Oh, but that idea was thrown out in favor of inclusion. You wish to punish all for the sake of the minority. Hmmm, this is education, right? Not politics? It all spills over.

As for "Who are these people who want all children to "sink together"? I would say you could enter that drawing.

 

[jasendorf]

Vouchers and charter schools are nothing more than an attempt to lower the cost of education on the backs of teachers. They give nominal, under-qualified teachers a place to be for less money while enjoying a more pleasant work environment devoid of major behavioral problems and challenging students. In turn, the for-profit schools then tout that they "educate for less" putting public school teachers on the spot over being paid an acceptable salary for work that isn't the same as that done by voucher and charter school teachers. In this race of who will work for the least, the children suffer as education becomes a less and less desireable profession due to the lack of equitable pay for the amount of education and certification mandated from on-high to even be part of the profession (well, except in voucher and charter schools where no mandated requirements exist).

I think all teachers deserve better than the voucher and charter system which is designed to divide teachers into those who want a pleasant work environment for low pay or a frustrating environment for what is soon to be lower pay.

Cheap Labor Republicans. They come in every profession.

 

[Annie]

Vouchers and charter schools are nothing more than an attempt to lower the cost of education on the backs of teachers. They give nominal, under-qualified teachers a place to be for less money while enjoying a more pleasant work environment devoid of major behavioral problems and challenging students. In turn, the for-profit schools then tout that they "educate for less" putting public school teachers on the spot over being paid an acceptable salary for work that isn't the same as that done by voucher and charter school teachers. In this race of who will work for the least, the children suffer as education becomes a less and less desireable profession due to the lack of equitable pay for the amount of education and certification mandated from on-high to even be part of the profession (well, except in voucher and charter schools where no mandated requirements exist).

I think all teachers deserve better than the voucher and charter system which is designed to divide teachers into those who want a pleasant work environment for low pay or a frustrating environment for what is soon to be lower pay.

Cheap Labor Republicans. They come in every profession.

So you agree that BD, kids with LD that are at least 2 grade levels behind, and the gifted should be moved back to self-contained classrooms, so the majority can learn?

 

[GotZoom]

Got anything to add to the topic?

Um..let's see.

You are such a putz.

OH...sorry...the topic.

I think our education system is in trouble. There is no motivation for teachers or parents to show any interest in their child's education. Teachers aren't allowed to discipline and have to fear attacks by their student's parents should they give them a failing grade. Many groups care more about the student's rights (protest immigration, freedom of speech, etc) than they do about the child sitting in his chair and getting an education.

School has become nothing more than a babysitting service.

I like the way they do it in Europe. In most countries, education is free, often up to and including undergraduate education. The parents are free to choose which school their child attends and the schools are funded on a grant system based on the number of students who attend. The better the school, the more students. The most student, the more funds.

I went to public school up until 10th grade. The a private high school until graduation. I received a much better education at the private high school than I did the public one.

And my parents, from day one, showed an interest in my education. Grades, homework, school projects, etc. They went to every Parent-Teacher conference and when I didn't do as well as they thought I should have, I paid the price.

Parents should be involved on a daily basis with everything their child is doing and what the school is doing.

Parental involvement. It all starts there.

(and I am very surprised that you having [should be haven't; El Dorfo pointed out this typo to me] mentioned race when it comes to vouchers)

 

[jasendorf]

So you agree that BD, kids with LD that are at least 2 grade levels behind, and the gifted should be moved back to self-contained classrooms, so the majority can learn?

I think there are appropriate times and occassions where well structured inclusion works. I don't know that I can make a blanket statement which covers every kid; but, I can agree that there needs to be opportunities, whether they be additional or separate classes, for both gifted students to excel and for LD students to succeed.

 

[jasendorf]

Parents should be involved on a daily basis with everything their child is doing and what the school is doing.

Parental involvement. It all starts there.

Then you and I agree.

(and I am very surprised that you having mentioned race when it comes to vouchers)

Get that sentence from your private school education?

 

[Annie]

I think there are appropriate times and occassions where well structured inclusion works. I don't know that I can make a blanket statement which covers every kid; but, I can agree that there needs to be opportunities, whether they be additional or separate classes, for both gifted students to excel and for LD students to succeed.

You just spent I don't know how much time saying that little learning is going on, yet now you can see 'a well structed inclusion program.' You are just married to your misconceptions, will not let anything penetrate the fog you live in, and truly there are reasons so many have you on ignore.

 

[jasendorf]

You just spent I don't know how much time saying that little learning is going on,

I did? Got a quote for that allegation?