Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] Private schools



Skipping over the philosophical arguments since we have little ground in
common on this point, and focussing on your responses to me...

In 1. below, It is most certainly NOT a "red herring", nor does what you
wrote invalidate what I wrote as near as I can tell. If you would clarify
exactly how this "average cost per student" in private schools was
calculated, perhaps you can convince me of its validity. But if all that
was done was to total up costs and divide by students, this does not
represent a rebuttal of my point. If you're saying that we take the
average cost of one class in each grade (with the same number of students),
total the costs and divide by total students, it's closer, but it is
unlikely that anyone went to that kind of trouble to do. And in any case
ignores the ADDITIONAL fact that the population of students that public
schools must teach MUST cost more since public schools, on average, have
more students who demand extra funding (SE, ESL, etc). They must also meet
unfunded mandates which most private schools can ignore to some extent.
In 2 below, you suggest that volunteer work by parents in public schools
somehow equates (in value) to teaching and administrative staff working for
free in some private schools. THAT is most certainly not true, and IS a
red herring. Nor is it true that public schools receive anything like the
monetary gifts many private schools enjoy, but you didn't exactly address
that issue.

In 3, you suggest that a 4% expenditure from already strained budgets is
"minor and trivial". My district alone has a multi-million dollar budget.
For each million, that is $40,000 up in smoke. Won't pay for a teacher,
but would certainly keep some aides in the SE classes employed. Not minor
and trivial by my lights!

4 suggests a 'solution' which would destroy public schools, benefit those
who are at the top of the income scale, and penalize everyone else. Very
few people would vote for such a thing once educated about the consequences.
5..."Why is that relevant"?! If you can seriously ask that, then we're on
different planets entirely...

Your response in 6 totally baffles me... You barely acknowedge the
validity of my argument, which, btw, would almost universally be the case,
as being a "fringe effect"?! You then suggest your own example of removing
4-5 students from a cohort of 28-30 and suggest that this will somehow
allow a class (and teacher) to be eliminated? HOW? Are you envisioning
two classes with 15 students each (talk about FRINGE!) and later combining
them into a single class of 25? You see this as a likely case? You think
that this will maybe impact the classes that just went from 15 kids to 25?

It's pretty clear, Ze'ev, that there's no way we will agree on anything
related to what is 'fair', or 'better'.

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Ze'ev Wurman <zeev@ieee.org> wrote:


Comments on some specific points raised recently.

1. "A disproportionate percentage of private schools are elementary grades
only (which is relatively cheap)"

This is a red herring. When I quoted the average cost per student I used
the combined (k-12) school value ($9.2K), and not the average in private
industry, to avoid exactly this point. Still slightly cheaper than public
($10.3K), but the key point is they are in the same ballpark.

2. "Many (most?) private schools have at least some support from religious
organizations"

True for some (although less than one would think in recent years) but the
same can be said of public schools that receive a lot of cash and in-kind
support through PTA, community organizations, and parental volunteering.

3. "Public schools still have to transport private school students, adding
to costs."

NCES reports transportation costs at less than 4% of current expenditures.
Minor and trivial. Easy to add transportation costs to rural and
means-tested student vouchers.

4. "Assuming we settled at 50%, very few 'poor' parents will find that
sufficient to fund education for their kids."

Clearly. That's why 100% should be the equitable goal. Publicly funded
education should not be about subsidizing public education system or about
penalizing private one, but about spending equitably on similar children.
At the neighborhood of 100%, vouchers will easily cover the costs. And
Exeters tend to have endowments and grants, similar to Stanfords and
Harvards.

5. "ANY universal voucher plan negatively impacts funding of public
schools."

If your concern is the public school *system* that is, indeed, true. If
your concern is educating children, why is this relevant? Per students
funding can be easily maintained under variety of voucher plans.

6. "The 'cost per student' figure is pretty much useless in the context in
which it is being used. It doesn't cost ANYTHING to add a kid to a class
of 20 (well, maybe the cost of a book), and you don't SAVE anything by
removing 2 kids from a class of 24. For this reason, ANY voucher program
results in a net loss of funding at least 95% of the time."

I wonder how would most of you tolerate similar arguments from a student
in your Physics class. We all understand fringe effects but we also
presumably understand that fringe effects work both ways and are
statistically neutral or almost so. How far would it get your student to
argue the case of increase but ignore the case of decrease? What happens
when you remove 4-5 kids from a cohort of 28-30? Don't you suddenly gain a
whole class because you dropped just 4-5 students?