- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ohio’s version of “school choice” just underwent its first major study: Here are results
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:56 am to 4cubbies
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:56 am to 4cubbies
quote:
If we’re disregarding state test scores to celebrate college attendance
Who is "disregarding state test scores?" I didn't see that in the initial post or in the linked article. Your quote from the underlying study indicates that standardized posts are measured. They aren't disregarded; the authors just note the test itself doesn't correlate with what most would be a desirable outcome--college enrollment and college completion. If anything, the study itself shows that there are potential content validity issues with state standardized tests. Ever since Coleman published his study regarding the impact of social capital on standardized test scores, this area has been one of the most researched.
At a macro level, that leads to the question of what outcome you want from both the test and the school. The state score will not be used in any admission decision, any employment decision, or any type of credentialling. For about 99% of people, its probably not even a "bragging rights" issue. Next Leval Attainment seems to be weighed higher for most parents.
It's possible that the school counselors are better at getting the students into colleges, or the structure of the schools incentivizes students to strive for college. Nevertheless, that would still be a positive argument on the outcomes of these schools for next level attainment. That is, even if the educational attainment was hypothetically lower, these schools are still placing the students in positions where overall educational attainment would be higher throughout the citizen's institutional education experience. It doesn't matter if this attainment is related to counseling or education, the net result is higher attainment for the student and for society.
quote:
how are we supposed to judge the education provided by public schools?
There are multiple ways to judge a school's effectiveness, including, inter alia,
Accreditation (where applicable)
Teaching methods (particularly if you are focusing on elementary education)
Non-lecture activities
Qualitative discussions with other parents
Awards and distinctions
Indeed, the quoted post and subsequent posts (rather than the article) seems to indicate your advocating that Next Level Attainment should be deprioritized in favor of a state standardized test.
Your focus on the research you performed when selecting your home choice/school district seems just to exacerbate the problem. If you move to a district that has higher Next Level Attainment, this is not per se because of the superiority of teaching effectiveness. It just shows that the totality of all criteria in that district (including social capital) leads to next level attainment. That's still a valid reason to choose to move to that district, but you could likely make the same choice of school district based on criteria other than school test scores. For instance, is there any more efficacy in using standardized test scores than the median income of families in the school district on Next Level Attainment? Indeed, you may not have the data to see if the school is negatively correlated on test output scores based on the impact of the learners themselves or their environment.
Large segments of the population may not be afforded the same choice you were presented. Not everyone can choose the location of their home based on any number of factors. School choice programs allow people to choose their school independent of where they choose their home. The particular program under study appears to even remove the potential of school cost being a barrier to entry by having a progressive scheme of elibibility.
This post was edited on 4/27/25 at 9:09 am
0
Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:00 am to 4cubbies
quote:
It looks like you’re advocating for every single person to attend and graduate from college - is that accurate? So we can only judge how “good” or “bad” teachers and schools are by whether or not kids graduate from college?
Probably a good correlation between graduating college and being able to read at a functional level. Your point isn’t wrong but it feels disingenuous.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:45 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
or graduation college
quote:
the fact they went to a private school their likelihood of attending college increased.
What were your reading comprehension test scores?
Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:54 am to 4cubbies
quote:
If we’re disregarding state test scores to celebrate college attendance, how are we supposed to judge the education provided by public schools? Solely on college attendance and graduation?
You are maximum indoctrinated. Max.
You come on here all week claiming that black people are over policed and targeted by law enforcement when crime numbers come up……
NOW you have a program that benefits the black population with education and you are taking up for public schools that ultimately has failed large swaths of the black population????
You are the queen of programmed drones.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:55 am to Azkiger
quote:
If you can't meet the cut for college admission you're not going to graduate. No need to waste resources.
if you can't get into college you aren't trying. There's plenty of 'colleges' that'll accept you after you complete your student loan application.Posted on 4/27/25 at 9:04 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
if you can't get into college you aren't trying.
Every facility has its limits, unless your referencing those scammy online universities advertised on TV.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 9:05 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
teachers unions opposed it even though wealthy families were ineligible for the program
The thought was probably that school choice programs would drain the underperforming public schools of the most promising students, and leave the public schools with the idiots and criminals.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 9:13 am to Azkiger
quote:Places like 'for-profit' institutions like West Coast University came to mind.
Every facility has its limits, unless your referencing those scammy online universities advertised on TV.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 9:36 am to 4cubbies
quote:
If we’re disregarding state test scores to celebrate college attendance, how are we supposed to judge the education provided by public schools?
This is the problem I've always had with the Dept of Ed's half-assed top-down approach (taking a snapshot of something that might work in one place or specific environment, then pushing it out onto the rest of the public education universe as one-size-fits-all). The more you standardize tests, the more likely you are to have teachers teach to just the test. At that point you've defeated the idea of providing a well-rounded, basic education.
The flip side of that is that without some sort of standardized testing, how do you compare school quality because without a standard, graduation rates can be apples-to-helicopters comparisons.
But really, I think at least some of that testing discussion is a bright and shiny distraction (whether intended or not is irrelevant). One of the best things which helps a child in their grade-school education has been shown to be parental involvement. Showing up for school events (not just athletic), even volunteering for school events, regular and CONSTRUCTIVE communication with the child's teacher(s) (not just blasting them because their precious snowflake couldn't possibly be at fault), helping with homework, etc. are tremendous benefits to a child's education and this has been proven by studies, meta studies and studies of meta studies across pretty much every demographic one could imagine.
Along with working in tandem with the school to help guide the child, it also helps the community know ahead of time if there is some aspect beginning to fail at the school (mold in buildings, drugs, increasing violence, bad teachers, etc). This involvement can help create accountability before the issue becomes so deeply set that accountability after the fact becomes heavily resisted.
The problem is that you can't legislate a parent's desire to be that involved. While this puts us back to the testing criteria, the outcomes have to be viewed at least in part through the lens of propensity of parental involvement for the students of each given school. The larger a population of students whose parents aren't very involved, the more focus there should be on parental involvement from the parents of those students.
Until that changes, we're going to keep flailing around because we're trying to fix a symptom instead of a root cause.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 9:45 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Ohio’s program was purposed built to assist the lower class and not just be a handout to the middle class like many voucher programs I’ve seen floated around the country.
I am not surprised this demonstrated efficacy. Allowing students with parents who give a damn to escape a bad cohort will make a difference. A lot of studies show that a child’s cohort has more impact on their outcomes than the parents. They will spend more time with their peers than family after they reach school age.
I do not think the educators really are the problem. You’re not leaving the school, you’re leaving the sorry children from sorrier parents. If these public school educators didn’t have to deal with any children but the ones with parents who value education, they’d do a great job too.
I am not surprised this demonstrated efficacy. Allowing students with parents who give a damn to escape a bad cohort will make a difference. A lot of studies show that a child’s cohort has more impact on their outcomes than the parents. They will spend more time with their peers than family after they reach school age.
I do not think the educators really are the problem. You’re not leaving the school, you’re leaving the sorry children from sorrier parents. If these public school educators didn’t have to deal with any children but the ones with parents who value education, they’d do a great job too.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 9:46 am to Diego Ricardo
quote:
not just be a handout to the middle class
School choice is good for the poor but a handout if you’re not poor? Yikes.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 9:55 am to BBONDS25
quote:
School choice is good for the poor but a handout if you’re not poor? Yikes.
Broadly available school choice is just a middle class handout. Targeted school choice for poor performing school enrollees is simply more cost effective and will do a better job for improving educational quality at the macro level. It will inevitably end up benefiting lower income people or middle income people in an otherwise high poverty area because school performance essentially maps to socioeconomic demographics.
Your comments highlights middle class entitlement to the tee.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:01 am to Diego Ricardo
quote:
Broadly available school choice is just a middle class handout. Targeted school choice for poor performing school enrollees is simply more cost effective and will do a better job for improving educational quality at the macro level.
So…not equal application of the law. Got it.
quote:
Your comments highlights middle class entitlement to the tee.
Not considered middle class. However…if you’re talking about entitlement, that isn’t the first place I’d start. You should probably look at who pays the income taxes in this country.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:04 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Groups that benefited the most were blacks, boys, students who experienced long-term childhood poverty, and students with below-median test scores before leaving public school.
This is why it must end in the eyes of the filth. Without class warfare and racial tension, the filth has no platform. They MUST keep the voters on the plantation.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:06 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Not considered middle class. However…if you’re talking about entitlement, that isn’t the first place I’d start. You should probably look at who pays the income taxes in this country.
If we’re doing programs to improve educational outcomes, handing money to the middle class because they pay taxes is just entitlement. It is fiscally irresponsible and will do little to actually accomplish the stated goals of school choice. The middle class and higher have a time-tested way to cohort select for their children: move to the good zip code in your area.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:07 am to Diego Ricardo
quote:
handing money to the middle class
It’s all the governments money, right? We will never see eye to eye. This is a fundamental difference in thought process.
quote:
It is fiscally irresponsible and will do little to actually accomplish the stated goals of school choice. The middle class and higher have a time-tested way to cohort select for their children: move to the good zip code in your are
So…no equal application of the law. Got it.
This post was edited on 4/27/25 at 10:08 am
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:11 am to BBONDS25
quote:
It’s all the governments money, right? We will never see eye to eye. This is a fundamental difference in thought process.
It is a representative democracy. We don’t get to make individualized decisions on spending and it is inefficient for governments to operate in such a way.
quote:
So…no equal application of the law. Got it.
It is equal application. If you’re upper class but live in a high poverty area that will inevitably have bad schools then you can get the voucher. I am saying that the system will have the most benefit to lower class because the limited, fiscally responsible funding will be open to places where they are more numerous. I am not saying it will only be available to the lower class.
This post was edited on 4/27/25 at 10:21 am
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:14 am to TBoy
quote:
Perhaps because of these limitations.
Why?
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:14 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Important to note that the Ohio program, up until recently
1) was only eligible for low income students
2) the kids had to be in the bottom 20% of Ohio schools to be eligible
Sounds like exclusion and discrimination
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:17 am to Cuz413
I think getting rid of the income restriction is a good idea to be honest. If the cohort your child is likely to be around is toxic, the state should throw you a bone.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News