re: Ohio’s version of “school choice” just underwent its first major study: Here are results

quote:

---

In this thread, 4cubbies support standardized testing as an accurate means of measuring educational outcome

---

If my only choices are judging state test scores or college graduation rates, I’d go with state test scores.

I didn’t actually take either of those things into consideration when I selected my kids school though.

quote:

---

You are maximum indoctrinated. Max.

---

Yes, asking questions is always proof of blind allegiance.

I’d be curious about ACT and or SAT scores. State test may be skewed as many teachers may teach as simply to pass the state test. Particularly if that teacher is being evaluated by her students state pass rates.

quote:

---

So you agree the efficacy of schools and teachers shouldn’t be judged on standardized test scores.

---

There's a myriad of good ways to measure obviously.

To your chagrin, the percent of students cross dressing isn't one of them though.

quote:

---

looks like you’re advocating for every single person to attend and graduate from college - is that accurate?

---

Terrible strawman. He's using a positive outcome as indication of improved process.

quote:

---

So we can only judge how “good” or “bad” teachers and schools are by whether or not kids graduate from college?

---

Who said only?

I know you want to keep minorities in poverty and subservient to white saviors such as yourself. Then you can go flirt with naacp fellows.Thankfully, that's antithetical to school choice and the country is moving that direction.

quote:

---

Again. A fundamental difference in thinking. You think it’s the governments money and they just allow us to keep some. And what they allow us to keep is an entitlement. I see things the exact opposite. Doesn’t make either one of us bad…it’s just a completely different way of thinking.

---

quote:

---

If different “classes” gets you different “entitlements” it is the exact opposite of equal application.

---

We can agree to disagree. I broadly agree with school choice should be offered but I'm hesitant about universal availability for a litany of reasons. First, I don't think it will actually improve outcomes for most applicants. Second, I think universal voucher programs will be inflationary on private school tuition prices. A voucher essentially sets a new floor for cost of tuition. Third, I think it will disproportionately help people in urbanized areas and perhaps even hurt more rural areas.

Private schools are businesses. They've got to be financially solvent or they go out of business. I have my doubts that a rural private school subsidized by vouchers can provide as good of an education as a rural public school. There just aren't enough people nor high enough incomes to support tuition too far above the voucher floor. Speaking from hometown experience, we had a rural private school academy and it closed early in my school career. It was close to my home. Not quite walkable at my age but would've been by middle school. There just weren't enough middle or higher income families in my town to sustain it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Theoretically, yes. But like every other neoliberal “great idea,” it doesn’t actually work like this when put into practice.

The Louisiana Scholarship Program (school vouchers 1.0) were a total embarrassment. LA GATOR (school vouchers 2.0) won’t yield better results. I would bet my house on it.

The parents that took advantage of it probably had education as a priority. So they moved to a better demographic school where their student could take advantage. The parents that don’t have that priority didn’t care to move so all that together could account for the 15% increase. Most of it comes from the parents and the the environment their kids create in the schools they attend

It is the taxpayers money.

They should be able to use it to pay the school of their choice for their kids attendance.

Any other metric is just noise.

quote:

---

my only choices are judging state test scores or college graduation rates, I’d go with state test scores

---

These aren't the only criteria nor does the study ( or the initial post ) represent these are the only choices.

quote:

---

didn’t actually take either of those things into consideration when I selected my kids school though

---

Then why are you creating a false choice on just those two criteria? Is there a study on how school choice impacts your chosen criteria? Does that study take into account the Ohio model?

quote:

---

Let's remove your angst/bias regarding private/parochial schools from the equation

---

I have no problem with private or parochial schools. I went to them from pre-k through 12th grade. My own kids will attend them for high school.

School vouchers are the topic of this discussion, not private or parochial schools.

quote:

---

If a students electively switched educational venues from a bottom 20% performing public school to a top 20% public school, and you were told the result was poorer test scores, would you not immediately find that claim to be dubious?

---

no. But I have expertise in education. I know that private school teachers don’t need to be credentialed. When I was in 7th grade, my classmate’s mom who never attended college at all and had no experience with kids outside of raising her own was one of my teachers. It would not surprise me to find out that inexperienced and uncredentialed teachers taught the kids who used vouchers.

quote:

---

Wouldn't you at least question methodology and derivation of the numbers?
Wouldn't you at least look into it?

---

I read the study. That’s how I was able to quote something from it that wasn’t in the OP. The methods are in the study. I don’t know why the researchers would be motivated to lie about decreased test scores when trying to prove the value of school vouchers. That’s why they focused on college - it was the only area that showed vouchers might be worth something.

quote:

---

How would one normally analyze performance deltas in cases like this?
It's simple really. Normally one would just track individual performance vs the statewide cohort over a timeframe on the same tests which were originally determinative of the individual's transfer qualification.

---

State test scores are used to gauge the efficacy of a teacher in that academic year. A change in student performance indicates better or worse teaching.

quote:

---

But that is not what was done in this case, is it?
As such, the question you should ask is "why?"
Why were individuals not simply tracked on the same statewide percentile basis by which they were originally evaluated?

---

I think you need to remove your tin foil hat. This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s very straight forward. This is the same way all schools that get public money measure student performance.

quote:

---

The voucher kids had an established performance history vs a statewide database before and after transfer. Where is it?

---

It’s irrelevant. That’s not taken into consideration for public schools so why should make exceptions for voucher schools? And if the argument is that vouchers are needed to allow student to receive a better education than public schools provide, why wouldn’t scores be compared the way the study compared them?

quote:

---

Secondly, the testing you reference is specifically tied to public school teaching.

---

Are you suggesting the voucher schools were not aware their students would be tested this way and didn’t teach students according to the state educational standards that the standardized tests are aligned to?

What do you think the schools taught instead?