Comments on: Hoist on their own petard

By: Ralph Squillace

Ralph Squillace — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:39:28 +0000

I read the NYT article, and while the smaller classroom thing is there, I too was interested in the ethnic distribution (I was surprised) and the performance difference between some states and others that wasn’t elaborated upon. An aside: Do people have a good starting place of the assessment for the rise of educational costs over the course of the century? As an historian of politics, I’ve not delved into the economics and public policy of public and private education before, so a good starting place would be appreciated.

By: Tom West

Tom West — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:07:58 +0000

I’ve always had a lot of admiration for those who actually want to work in the ‘tough’ schools. They’ve got everything arrayed against them: student attitudes, home environment, low budgets, and public opinion. You have to fight tooth and nail for every advance. Meanwhile, schools in higher socio-economic areas get so much for free. Even a mediocre teacher is going to be able to get results from a class that gratify the teacher and impress the parents… I swear I don’t know how they do it. Those who can give it their all in such environments, day after day, really are heroes.

By: harry

harry — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:22:45 +0000

As a parent you have absolutely no interest in improving the overall quality of schooling, only in making sure that you’re own kid gets the optimal level of support, and yes, peer-effects will be significant (though maybe not as important as you think). But as a policymaker you have no interest in any particular kid, but in improving overall performance under given budget constraints. Peer effects are then just one variable. Your comment, though, Tom, might help explain why people are so ignorant; they confuse the (more-or-less) rational judgement that ‘X school is better for my child because it contains lots of high-performing kids’ for the mistaken global judgment ‘X school is a better school because it contains high performing kids’.

By: Tom West

Tom West — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:53:10 +0000

people think that schools with good students in them are good and schools with bad students in them are bad How isn’t this true? Students are more influenced by peers than anything else. As many people have pointed out, many private schools exist to help parents avoid bad students, rather than anything wonderful about the school itself. And they’re right. Young people conform to their peers. So, as a parent, I can’t see any better criteria for evaluating a school than by how good its (incoming) students are. It’s probably a very good stand-in for how good my child will be coming out.

By: rd

rd — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:50:47 +0000

I take the point about the difficulty of catching what we want to know with statistics. But, having followed the link to the NYT article, I still found its report of the results mildly infuriating. We’re told that in two of the five states studies, Texas and Colorado, charters performed worse than mainline public schools even after taking greater race and poverty into account. Which means that in the other three states….what? No difference after taking race and poverty into account? Could charters actually be performing better in those states once you take race and poverty into account? The Times sees no need to bother with such petty details, since they don’t further the obvious agenda of the article.

By: harry

harry — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:27:03 +0000

I can’t get at the NY Time article, so take this with a pinch of salt. Charters probably do have less teachable students, because the political and other pressures for charters is higher where schools have children with lower performance. This pressure is a response, I would guess, to student quality rather than school quality, because people think that schools with good students in them are good and schools with bad students in them are bad. Furthermore there is consistent opinion poll data showing that support for choice, vouchers, and charters is much higher among blacks, for example, than among whites. John’s point about class sizes is interesting, but I discount it a bit (only a bit). Huge swathes of well-educated professorial types that I know are convinced that small class size have a huge effect, and have no idea there is a serious empirical debate about it. They pressure for small classes for their kids, and would choose them for them in private schools, for that reason. But there is also a non-educational reason for choosing small classes (and small schools) which I would guess the private sector responds to: it is simply a recipe for a more pleasant experience for both teacher and students, to be in a a smaller class, regardless of the educational effects (understood in terms of test scores). We’ve obliquely talked about this before, and I still promise a thoughtful post about it, John. But next time you post on an educational topic, please don’t do it on a US national holiday

By: MC

MC — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:45:09 +0000

That also brings up the possibility that race is a mediator of charter schools and success. If this were the model, then of course differences between charter school would become insignificant. I don’t know the theory and haven’t seen the numbers, but if such a model makes sense, it’s something to consider.

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:04:22 +0000

I think that the interesting revealed preference is that black Americans and Hispanics were both over represented in the charter schools – suggesting that they as a group perhaps place greater weight on things other than standardized test scores.

By: tc

tc — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:25:17 +0000

I don’t think so. What the NYT story doesn’t say is that the differences between charters and regular schools were no longer statistically significant after controlling for race.

By: JennyD

JennyD — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:07:57 +0000

As a statistician doing educational research at a big fancy state university, I agree with much of this. All the analyses are noisy for several reasons. But I would argue that the analyses involving charter schools and class size are likely quite valid. Why? Because neither of these variables is actually a measure of “teaching” or “education.” These are some kind of measure of “school organization.” So consider class size. If you have two teachers, one who uses very effective teaching strategies and who uses ineffective teaching strategies, and you give them both smaller classes, your coefficient for the effect of small classes should be the same as with larger classes. By putting fewer kids in the room, you’ve simply minimized the number of kids exposed to the teaching of these teachers. So one group of kids would learn more and one less. (This assumes that the classes of kids are equal on either measures, like SES, etc.) Now suppose you take the same analysis with charter schools. Yes, there are more covariants to control for, but still, a charter school is just a measure of school organization, and nothing more. It is often assumed by analysts that charther school is a code for “better teaching.” But that’s an assumption. I’m actually working on my dissertation and I’m trying to build better measures of instruction so I can use these in some kind of analysis. Probably an HLM model using groups of kids in a classroom, and the teaching being the level two, or level three variable.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:05:29 +0000

Further to John’s footnote number 2, I’d suggest that this neutral meaning of “reform” is stylebook for CT, and that the definition I used to use on D-Squared Digest (“a repulsive attack on the interests of the common man, made to sound less disgraceful by calling it a reform”) will only be used if specifically flagged.