Why did you support a policy that kicked poor kids out of good schools, including kids who were attending the same school your own daughters are attending?
19 thoughts on “One Of The Questions I Would Have Asked Tonight”
Comments are closed.
Why did you support a policy that kicked poor kids out of good schools, including kids who were attending the same school your own daughters are attending?
Comments are closed.
Now you know why you weren’t invited.
A corollary: It’s astonishing that the conventional media never ask some types of questions, not of the President and not of ordinary people during “man in the street” interviews. When did a reporter ever ask a prominent pol about the hypocrisy of sending his kids to private schools while he opposes vouchers? Or about the moral justification for forcing the most productive people to pay everyone else’s taxes?
And the media never report some types of answers, particularly those from ordinary people who happen to be articulate libertarians or otherwise don’t follow the media script.
I think this is the main reason why Bill O’Reilly is popular. In many ways he’s a jerk. But he is also the only major old-media figure who makes a big issue of media corruption.
Some of the questions asked last night were poor, but this one would be worse. It’s all about scoring points, and not about important policy choices.
The question starts with a false premise. Decisions about the D.C. voucher policy are not about poor kids attending elite private schools. Sidwell Friends has plenty of financial aid money, and can readily pay the way for the handful of poor D.C. kids who meet their entrance requirements, regardless of family finances or D.C. voucher policies.
The “good schools” you refer to — the private schools who will accept the typical poor student with a voucher — unfortunately have not delivered better results than even the D.C. public schools.
There is no question that poor children in D.C. (and most American cities) need better schools. Questions about Sidwell Friends have nothing to do with that problem.
Welcome to the White House Press Corps. It’s been that way at least since Truman.
It’s interesting to rewrite Jim’s final statement a little more honestly:
There is no question that poor children in D.C….need better schools. Questions about one of those better schools have nothing to do with that problem.
Orwell was an amateur!
Weird how in the New Era, broad groupthink principles are frequently defended by anecdotal evidence. (“Joe, a police officer, wasn’t laid off because of Stimulusaurus. It’s working!” “Melodee lost her home in Katrina and still hasn’t received a government job and government-paid new home — FEMA is rotten to the core, Bush doesn’t care!”) If you challenge the groupthink on general principles (government shouldn’t be meddling in local economic decisions, nor saving people from predictable storms) you’re labeled a heartless bastard. Don’t you care about the individuals here, the heart-tugging stories?
But then, when you do challenge the groupthink propositions with specific anecdotal evidence (“Torture doesn’t work? What about KSM singing like a bird after waterboarding?” “Vouchers don’t work? What about these poor kids doing well at Sidwell?”) you get the Jedi mind tricks defense. That’s just some kind of weird exception. There’s another explanation. You’ve mistaken the point. These are not the icons you’re looking for.
Remember folks, the only valid data points are those that fit the theory!
Vouchers don’t work? What about these poor kids doing well at Sidwell?
They’d be there with or without vouchers, and they’d be doing well with or without Sidwell.
Oh, right, Jim. Just like the wealthy will continue to work as hard as possible to create more wealthy no matter how much their taxes are raised, and people will continue to buy corporate paper whether or not the government feels free to meddle with the terms post-facto at will.
Same old same old, Jim. Marx got to this stuff 150 years ago. People are these little unadaptive robot cogs, the behaviour of which you can predict by their race and social class. They don’t respond to silly little motivators like the marginal price of things.
The entire history of the 20th century proves you’re full of shit. Doesn’t bug you, I guess, but others may wonder at the inability to learn from experience. Also, frankly, it’s boring to listen to 19th century arguments in a 21st century world.
I have an acquaintance who attributes his success, defined as graduating from college, post-graduate studies, and a career at an academic institution, to his widowed mom taking him out of the Milwaukee public school system at considerable personal sacrifice that he could attend Catholic school. He is a Christian of another denomination, but Catholic school accepted him and in his mind provided a more structured and rigorous education, in a way that the public schools were not able to provide, not only because of limited resources but also because of limitations on how a public school can be structured.
Perhaps this person has the qualities to have had success along some other education and career track, but this person upon retirement was feeling fulfilled in what he did.
I know that one person’s story does not a statistical inference make, but the reflexive “talking point” that the private schools do not or would not make any difference to the children in DC, on that one point I take offense.
There is a good question as to whether it is the school that makes the education or whether it is the motivation of the individual student or of the parents in providing an environment that encourages study.
But you better believe it that parents exercise school choice. The near wealthy, like Michelle and Barack Obama, sent their daughters to the Chicago Laboratory School, and they did this when they were struggling to make ends meet on a quarter million dollars/year AGI ( I read their disclosed tax returns, and having prepared my own returns for many years, I know how to read those forms, and I can tell you when the Obamas had near-wealthy status before the big book deal, they were spending every penny they made because they were reporting a pittance on Schedule B, and perhaps that colors their beliefs on government spending, saving, taxes, and who constitute “the rich”).
If the wealthy and near-wealthy chose private schools, the middle class, whatever that is supposed to mean these days, are certainly selective in the choice of public school. Yes, parents exercise choice in public schools. Many middle class parents make a big deal about which ‘burb they are going to buy a house, and “the schools” is perhaps the biggest determining factor, and parents are willing to pay a premium in house payments and property tax payments to chose “good schools” for their children.
Yes Jim, it really is a matter of school choice for me and not for thee. It is only the people among the working poor who don’t have any school choice, and no, simply providing more funding for the public schools attended by the poor is not the same thing as offering choice, and if you think it means the same thing, it tells me you don’t have any children.
The middle-class voted down school choice in Michigan, and perhaps I don’t blame them, because middle-class parents in Michigan already exercised school choice at considerable expense by moving into expensive neighborhoods to select better schools, and the voucher system up ends that.
I don’t blame people for voting their selfish interest, but Jim, if you are in the blame game that the middle-class to the near-wealthy are hypocrites, you should save your wrath for the comfortable white people in Michigan who voted against the thing you also condemn.
the reflexive “talking point” that the private schools do not or would not make any difference to the children in DC, on that one point I take offense.
It isn’t a talking point, it’s just a fact. If the private schools in DC that were accepting vouchers were doing a better job than the public schools then vouchers would be an interesting option. Sadly, the test results show that they aren’t.
Rand’s question is not about choice. Poor kids in DC already have the “choice” to attend Sidwell Friends.
“If the private schools in DC that were accepting vouchers were doing a better job than the public schools then vouchers would be an interesting option. Sadly, the test results show that they aren’t.”
OK, my anecdote doesn’t stand a chance against test results or whatever statistical methods or studies establish that the voucher schools in DC are of no improvement over their public competition.
Then why aren’t the Obama daughters enrolled in public school? Can’t the Secret Service assign officers to look after their safety in whatever school they chose? Is Sidwell Friends some manner of super school that leaves the voucher-accepting private schools in the dust in the same way it is superior to the public schools?
But fundamentally, the Libertarian ethnic is not strictly a utilitarian one. If “whoops, giving people a choice allows them to choose wrong, we are going to take that choice away because it only leads to harm”, what value is their in freedom?
But try telling that to the the many middle class families who go to considerable expense to exercise choice over schools, whether these schools are private or in most cases public. Try telling a parent that it doesn’t matter much what school their children attend, the outcome is socially determined.
“Rand’s question is not about choice. Poor kids in DC already have the “choice” to attend Sidwell Friends.”
What a load of crap. Now, none of them will and Obama will choose to send his kids there because he can. The others are relagated back to DC public schools. No more networking with children from the rich side of town. Back to schools with drugs and violence. There is more to school than just test scores. So private school for me but not for thee. I know which one I would want MY kids to go to. How about you?
Then why aren’t the Obama daughters enrolled in public school?
Because Sidwell is a lot nicer, it means fewer security/privacy hassles, and the Obama girls qualify for admission.
Is Sidwell Friends some manner of super school that leaves the voucher-accepting private schools in the dust in the same way it is superior to the public schools?
No. The primary reason they turn out exceptionally smart graduates is that they only accept exceptionally smart applicants.
Bill Maron:
Now, none of them will and Obama will choose to send his kids there because he can.
This just isn’t true. There were 1,700 voucher recipients in D.C. Of those, 2 or 3 attend Sidwell Friends. The $7,500 voucher does not come close to covering the $29,000 cost of a year at Sidwell, but Sidwell has generous financial aid. According to their website:
Taking away the $7,500 voucher increases that gap by $7,500, and so increases the Sidwell financial aid award by the same amount.
So private school for me but not for thee.
The D.C. voucher program covers 2% of the students in D.C. public schools. So it is still “private school for me but not for thee,” where the lucky 2% are determined by luck, the ability to get into a private school, and the ability to pay for (or get financial aid for) the tuition not covered by the voucher. There aren’t nearly enough private schools for all the students in D.C. public schools, and there aren’t private schools who would accept all of them. Would you educate a poor, learning-disabled kid for $7,500?
The only way to help the vast majority of students in D.C. is to improve the public schools. Where the Obama kids go has nothing to do with that.
I know which one I would want MY kids to go to. How about you?
My wife and I went to elite private schools (my wife attended Punahou, like Obama), and we both taught at such schools. Our kids went to public schools. While the private schools had amenities that the public schools lacked, the educations my sons received were just as good, and in some ways better (they interacted with a wider range of peers, and received special ed services that private schools don’t usually offer). It depends a lot on the kid and the school.
Public Schools have some burdens that private schools don’t. Public Schools are required to educate ALL kids regardless of disability, behavior problems and background. So the public schools have to maintain an infrastructure for Special Ed, ESL, Counseling and meals.
Legitimately, the public schools are working really hard to meet some of those issues. A catholic school can refuse to accept a student with Cerebral Palsy or severe retardation. Act up 3 times and a catholic school will expel you.
Now public schools waste money and become big bureaucracies, but, that can be addressed by keeping the school systems smaller. Above 5000 students, there is very little economy of scale. Also invest more at the primary schools, it’s where the biggest payoff is.
Ok, Jim, I’m not sure I see your point here. You start by noting (correctly or not) that “test results” are the same for public and private schools in Washington DC, and implying that were the only criteria for choosing a school. Then you go on in a later post to bring out several other reasons (security, special ed, etc) for why parents would chose a school. At least one of the criteria (security) favors private over public schools.
Moving on, I don’t think you get the business model of a place like Sidwell. Sure they bring in bright students who can’t pay tuition, but that serves to make the school more valuable for the clientele who can afford their services. The school isn’t going to eat tens of thousands of cost per student just to educate a huge bunch of bright, poor students. Even if they aren’t profit oriented, they still need to keep costs below revenue.
A $7,500 voucher (which is a quarter of their charged price) goes a long ways to both covering costs and allowing the financial aid funds that the school doles out to go further (at least a third further, maybe a lot more). Even if the school doesn’t pass some of the savings from vouchers to its customers, that’s a significant boost to their financial position.
As I see it, vouchers correct the subsidy advantage that public schools have and despite claims to the contrary, encourage the growth of schools that serve the needs of students and their parents.
Karl:
My reference to security was about the Obamas; most kids don’t have their security concerns.
You may be right that Sidwell could not survive without tuition from some students (although there are private schools that could survive purely on their endowments). But the sad fact is that they aren’t turning away qualified poor kids because they can’t pay — they are turning away poor kids because those kids are less qualified that the students they do admit. Talking about Sidwell in relation to a discussion of D.C. K-12 education is like talking about the Olympics in relation to physical fitness. Yes it isn’t “fair” that not all kids get to be trained by Olympic coaches, but that really isn’t the point.
Vouchers have tried to encourage the growth of schools that serve the needs of students and their parents; the empirical evidence is that they have failed to do so to a degree that would justify public support.
Vouchers have tried to encourage the growth of schools that serve the needs of students and their parents; the empirical evidence is that they have failed to do so to a degree that would justify public support.
Do you have citable evidence of this, Jim? Here’s my concern, The program was only in action for 4-5 years, as far as I can tell. Even for the wildly optimistic, that’s not a lot of time for so-called “growth”. It apparently has had both serious quality problems in the schools and yet considerable satisfaction from the people enrolled in the program.
My reference to security was about the Obamas; most kids don’t have their security concerns.
It’s still an example of how the elite of Washington, DC avoid public schools. And let’s face it, every kids has security concerns. I don’t find this argument convincing.
Click on my name for a reference to a study of the D.C. voucher program:
The Obama kids have privacy concerns, that are probably greater then their security concerns.
Ok, that’s interesting, Jim and important. Reading around, I realize that a big problem of school vouchers is evaluating school performance. To chose, you need information. There seems to be huge problems among parents in evaluating these schools. For example, only a fraction of private schools’ students are reported in some standardized tests (see my link above). It’d be interesting to see what the parents made their chose on and whether the school in question delivered what the parents expected.
My view is that school vouchers aren’t going to be well used when important information can be manipulated so easily. OTOH, in the absence of widespread school vouchers, there isn’t the incentive for the market to provide information on schools.
For example, someone like the College Board (who writes the Scholastic Achievement Test or SAT) could make some money by selling the results for a combined IQ/knowledge test (I use “IQ” for lack of a better term, something that measures to a reasonable degree, raw ability as opposed to knowledge). If done well, you’d have a good comparison of students of similar ability (the “IQ” part) and how well they’ve learned knowledge at the school.
To continue discussion of the value of vouchers. There are differences in property values due to the presence of schools. For example, I know of an anecdotal case of someone living over the county border from Chapel Hill (which is in Orange County). Due to the strength of the Orange County school system (at least that’s what the home owner who was childless claimed), there something like a 10% premium on house prices as compared to houses on the other side of the county border (in Chatham County to the south, IIRC).
I believe every urban area has similar examples of strong school systems that are better enough than the rest of the region that they strongly affect real estate prices in the area. One advantage of school vouchers is that they disentangle where you live from where you go to school. And while the RAND report above indicates that vouchers in the Washington, DC trial for whatever reason aren’t an obviously superior approach academically, it doesn’t mean that vouchers aren’t better in the long run.
One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of the vouchers appear to be used for religious schools. That seems a reasonable use for the money even if the school happens to be something controversial like an Islamic or Evangelical Christian based school.