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

quote:

---

Nvm, the most recent study is 9 years old

---

Can’t even do math.

quote:

---

attainment is still a better method for policy measurement,

---

This is a distinction without a difference in this discussion, but attainment is the measure being discussed. The whole point is vis a vis the student ( and anyone acting in loco parentis) is state tests are interim measures ( which may lack content validity ) on any meaningful education outcome

quote:

---

What policy?

---

School choice. The research is a case study on the Ohio model Do you aver that the study linked in the first post does something different?

quote:

---

does not. Test scores decreased. More people paid for college. Since they were low income, we can safely assume they financed their degrees - especially with their low standardized test scores

---

What are you reading? State standardized test scores had a modest decrease. The focus of all discussions are: the decrease is negligible, attainment is better outcome, and, after your ex post facto shift of the discussion, is a less meaningful measurement by parents for middle and secondary school institutional choice. Choosing a school that merely teaches a test is suboptimal

Also, your inference chain doesn't work. First, the lower scores are in state standardized tests. There is no data table regarding performance on admissions exams. To the extent there is data to draw a conclusion on this new argument— not only are enrollments are up but degrees are up. Thus more potential ROI per educational dollar. Also, there is no reason to believe that the increased participation rate negatively impacts the ability for students from low income families to obtain aid. Indeed, not only are overall enrollments are up, they are significantly up for selective schools, slightly up for more selective schools, and there is no change to the most selective schools. There tends to be more institutional money available in selective schools. Selective schools require higher admission scores, but don't measure state standardized tests at all


Ohio also accomplished Phase1 without any increase in per pupil cost Danninger, Jakob; Jindal, Sidharth; Harris, Laura; and Page, Nathaniel (2024) "EdChoice — A Reason to Rejoice? An Analysis of Competitive Effects of School Voucher Programs in Ohio," Case Western Reserve University Journal Of Economics: Vol. 2

quote:

---

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.

---

We know what they do for athletes. Don’t think they wouldnt do that for non athletes if they want the numbers to look good

quote:

---

You are dissatisfied with the way public schools assess student achievement when the same standards of assessment are applied to voucher schools so I’m asking you for the specific metrics you would like to see used and you’re just being snarky in response.

---

Snarky?
Perhaps what you perceive as "snarky" is not just my intolerance to underperformance, but far more so to "explanations" attempting to excuse it.

Insofar as operational success entails recognition of weakness and correction of it, K-12 US publication is not on a path to success. E.g., The fact that at your level of education in the field, you're not familiar with performance improvement instruments/programs is certainly not your fault, but it speaks ominously of any chance for positive change in US Education, generally.

Given the money we put in, our public school system performance is poor. Let's break down some of the related facts. On a per student basis, the US ranks 5th in the world in 1°/2° educational expenditure on a PPP basis. The top five are: Luxembourg $25,600, Norway $18,000, Austria $15,900, Korea $15,900, US $15,500.

Meanwhile, we rank 34th out of 81 countries in math performance, and underperform in reading and science as well. 54% of American Adults Read at lower than 6th Grade-Levels!

Rather than focus on weaknesses and ways to correct them, public school advocates cloud the poor ROI we are getting in the arena. Organizations such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) use nomenclature and manipulated tests to imply higher performance levels. E.g., the NAEP uses "Below Basic," "Basic," "Proficient," and "Advanced" to categorize academic competence.

So literally half of those "Lower Than 6th Grade-Level" adults (noted above) are rated by the NAEP as readers who exhibit "basic" comprehension and proficiency. The same is true of testing. If student test results are suboptimal, the "solution" is to modify testing, scoring, or both, rather than improve education to actually raise test performance. Then pro-system folks like yourself cite the modified results as evidence the status quo is just fine. After all, 75% of Americans read at a """basic""" level or better, so what's the complaint?

Over the years, I've given a truckload of money, time and service to support education, especially for capable kids trapped in mediocrity or worse. This is stuff that I am beyond compassionate about. Meanwhile, according to PS teachers, teacher unions, and administrators, the public system is doing such a fine job that poor kids should be given no choice but to attend the school the public system provides. Actual school choice is solely for families who can (or try to) afford it. It is beyond disgusting.

I like school choice, but that study seems very flawed. It seems likely that such a small increase is due to the fact that the students who chose to get out of the shitholes probably had more concerned parents, and THAT was the reason for the overperformance.

We have shitty schools because we have shitty parents. It’s as simple as that. School choice is humane because it gives good parents the ability to discriminate against shitty parents.

quote:

---

like school choice, but that study seems very flawed. It seems likely that such a small increase is due to the fact that the students who chose to get out of the shitholes probably had more concerned parents, and THAT was the reason for the overperformance

---

That point was made earlier, but how is that a flaw in the study, or in a larger sense, not supportive of School Choice policies?

The data shows the difference in attainment. Even if its 100 percent due to involved parents, then the program:

-Enables those parents to achieve those outcomes; and
-Does so without any of increase in per pupil expenditure

quote:

---

We have shitty schools because we have shitty parents. It’s as simple as that. School choice is humane because it gives good parents the ability to discriminate against shitty parents.

---

I don't knoe if you are wanting to to say its inhumane rather than humane. If you do mean humane, then Im not sure of the concern with the study. Any program, education are otherwise, will yield higher results on parties that maximize the program. Absent EdChoice, Ohio parents have fewer tools. They may want to be a part of a better system, but cannot do do without changing residence, which can be impractical or impossible

If you mean inhumane, then how do you arrive at this conclusion. Its not the classic “we are taking away from public schools” bromide. Per pupil expenditures are the same. They stay the same without the program and no money or resource is lost to those that dont particioate

We aren't seeing a zero sum negative effect on schools. Applications and degrees are up based on the program. We didn't abandon public schools with non-scholars. We just allow parents (regardless of whether they meet this vesting threshhold or not) to choose options that can lead to higher levels of achievement. If certain schools would “either and die” as his been the lament of naysayers, it should have happened by now.

If there is an achievement gap by these “vested parents” it wasn't occurring in the old model. The tool makes additional achievement possible without taking anything away from corporate treasuries or resources to the non-vested parents.
If there are better or otherways to promote parental investment, then they can be pursued without impacting thus policy in any way

So those results are from the limited version or the open version? And how did they prohibit wealthy families?

quote:

---

The fact that at your level of education in the field, you're not familiar with performance improvement instruments/programs is certainly not your fault, but it speaks ominously of any chance for positive change in US Education, generally.

---

Me: “how would you like to see student achievement measured?”

You: “It’s alarming that you don’t know how to measure student achievement considering you are educated and have taught before.”

Come on. When did you become so petty?

quote:

---

We have shitty schools because we have shitty parents. It’s as simple as that. School choice is humane because it gives good parents the ability to discriminate against shitty parents.

---

Absolutely, schools are a reflection of the communities they serve. They are a mirror to what goes on inside those homes and families.

quote:

---

If by college degrees you also consider vocational job type training as part of that educatio

---

Enrollment in 2 year community colleges is also up

quote:

---

Tests like the ACT and SAT are actually good predictors of college success

---

There is no data in the study on admissions test. The pool has a modest decrease in state standardized tests, which may imply state standardize have issues for predicting attainment. Enrollment and degrees are also up for selective and more selective schools