Strange bedfellows and ulterior motives
An article in today's Record purports to unmask the donors behind E3 ("Excellent Education for Everyone"), a The fact that diverse groups have seen fit to join together to question the status quo has, naturally, infuriated the New Jersey Education Association, which is locked in an aggressive propaganda battle with E3. In fact, reading between the lines of the Record article, it seems that some of the facts about E3's links to the Right came from sources within the NJEA, whose website, according to the Record article, labels E3 a “front group … backed by right-wing money.” It is hard not to laugh at this sort of rhetoric given that the NJEA is itself a front group backed by left-wing teachers’ union money. On the issue of credibility, or lack thereof, it appears that the two sides are on roughly equal footing.
The real question, of course, is not one of motives, but of actual problems and solutions. Here, too, there is plenty of room for disagreement, due at least in part to the standards of research in the social sciences. That is how E3 and the NJEA can differ so markedly over whether school choice improves educational outcomes. It seems that both sides in the debate would benefit from reading Jay P. Greene’s book, Education Myths, which injects a dose of serious statistical analysis and logical thought into a complicated discussion. While the preponderance of the evidence may point toward some of the diagnoses proffered by E3, we need not feel constrained to follow its policy prescriptions. But if we truly want what is best for
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 11:20 AM
18 Comments:
Jay Greene is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Are we to believe that his perspective on this matter is unbiased?
What about the recent report prepared by the Educational Testing Service called "Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling" which the Department of Education attempted to bury because it conflicted with their anti-public education ideology. The report compares the academic performance of public schools and private schools, statistically controlling for variables such as socio-economic status, gender, race and ethnicity, English language learning, and learning disability. The report found that public schools perform as well or better than private schools in fourth grade reading, fourth grade math and eighth grade math. Only in eighth grade reading did private schools do slightly better.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fine points by Swurgle: parents who can afford to pay 15K per year per child usually provide other educational benefits that skew test results. One reservation about the ETS study: the discrepancies usually widen in high school, at least according to the Bank Street research. Keep up the good work, Teaneckblog. Well written, always provocative, usually balanced. Best Teaneck blog by far on the web!
To refer to the Teaneckblog as, “Well written, always provocative, usually balanced,” is laughable. His reference to the NJEA, “It is hard not to laugh at this sort of rhetoric given that the NJEA is itself a front group backed by left-wing teachers’ union money,” is not balanced. Calling the teachers’ union a front group is ridiculous. They are the teachers’ union. It would be like calling the Republican Party a front group for Republicans.
While a statement line, “On the issue of credibility, or lack thereof, it appears that the two sides are on roughly equal footing,” may sound balanced but it’s actually a reflection of the author’s bias. It’s like equating Intelligent Design and Evolution.
Jay Greene is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Are we to believe that his perspective on this matter is unbiased?
No, you are to read the book and see what conclusions you come to through the rigorous application of proper statistical methods, which, as Dr. Greene shows, is rare in education research. But that wasn't my point.
My point is that a legitimate debate about policy and the plight of students in failing school districts has been hijacked by the special interest with the most to lose from an open and honest debate. That this group also happens to have been identified in the recent series of articles by the Bergen Record as a major obstacle in the way of bringing municipal budgets under contol certainly feeds my mistrust of them.
His reference to the NJEA, “It is hard not to laugh at this sort of rhetoric given that the NJEA is itself a front group backed by left-wing teachers’ union money,” is not balanced. Calling the teachers’ union a front group is ridiculous. They are the teachers’ union. It would be like calling the Republican Party a front group for Republicans.
Guess that attempt at parody escaped the audience...
It only escaped Tom Abbott. Glad to see the sarcastic curmodgeon is still around. At least you admit it's well written, I hope. Or is something well written only if one agrees?
Can you clarify what the relevance of it being a "parody" is? Was the sentence not an attempt to ridicule the NJEA and thus give E3 more credibility? Perhaps I misread the entire article and TB does not favor the E3 viewpoint.
I must admit I was focusing un the "balanced" part of your statement and had ignored the "well written" part. Similarly, I would not concern myself with whether a book on Intelligent Design is well written.
While I have your attention, can you perhaps explain what makes this blog the, "Best Teaneck blog by far on the web!" Have you seen, Teaneck Progress?
Can you clarify what the relevance of it being a "parody" is? Was the sentence not an attempt to ridicule the NJEA and thus give E3 more credibility? Perhaps I misread the entire article and TB does not favor the E3 viewpoint.
Apparently you did. When I pointed out that the NJEA also had ulterior motives and wrote that the two sides were "on roughly equal footing," I meant that neither enjoyed a superior claim to impartiality on this issue.
In fact, as I have both implied and explicitly stated elsewhere on this blog, I do not approve of the use of public funds for private education, but I do support some form of school choice and the consolidation of school districts. The NJEA strongly opposes efforts to realize efficiencies and slash overhead for obvious reasons. That wasn't the subject of the post. The point of the post was to criticize the NJEA for the diversionary tactics it is using to avoid a potentially damaging but nonetheless important public debate.
On another point, I'm not sure how this ties into the Intelligent Design theory or evolution, though you seem intent on linking the two. I suppose you might mean that some of the backers of E3 can be presumed to believe in Intelligent Design while members of the teachers' union are associated with evolution. Nobody should be persuaded to dismiss E3's legitimate arguments out of hand based on this, however. To do so would be to employ the very same tactics that the NJEA is using- discrediting the participant rather than the argument being advanced. If I have you wrong and you mean to say that E3 relies on educational theories that rest on a foundation no firmer than that of Intelligent Design theory while the NJEA bases itself on rock solid reasoning, I recommend you read Greene's book. While the testable claims of Intelligent Design theory can be refuted through the very same scientific methods that render the theory of evolution our best explanation of the mechanism by which life developed, no such thing has been done in the field of education. And the best attempts at it so far don't necessarily bolster the NJEA's case for maintaining the status quo.
Tom - Keep up the good work. Your commission check is in the mail.
That's the heart of the matter, Tom. I don't agree with half of what Teaneck Blog writes but I acknowledge is well written and usually not predictable. Teaneck Progress is wholly predictable at written imprecisely. I stopped reading it because it's completely predictable. A nice ripoff of this blog but that's what freedom of expression means.
Please keep posts on topic
Thanks
You may have stated that "neither enjoyed a superior claim to impartiality on this issue," but doesn’t "While the preponderance of the evidence may point toward some of the diagnoses proffered by E3..." suggest that you believe that E3’s views are more credible.
On a follow up to your May 14th post, you wrote, "As is well known, numerous municipalities across the country have instituted voucher programs that allow children residing in unsatisfactory school districts to attend school elsewhere." This led me to believe that you did support the use of public funds for private education. I don't doubt that your view is what you say, but sometimes I find it difficult to tell what your view is.
You read much to much into my mention of Intelligent Design. My references were no more than what they were. I was using the comparison to state my belief that E3 is far less credible than the NJEA. I know you don’t agree. Perhaps my choice of comparison was ill considered as it could lead to the conclusions you came to.
As for the reference to how well this blog is written, I was simply trying to say that it was irrelevant to me just as the quality of writing in a book supporting Intelligent Design is irrelevant to me. Some of the books on Intelligent Design are well written, well funded, and claim to support their theories with the application of scientific method.
You may have stated that "neither enjoyed a superior claim to impartiality on this issue," but doesn’t "While the preponderance of the evidence may point toward some of the diagnoses proffered by E3..." suggest that you believe that E3’s views are more credible.
I chose my words carefully for a reason. From my own reviews of the academic literature (admittedly influenced by some of the key methodological points raised by Jay P. Greene), I believe there is evidence that restricting students to public schools within their own arbitrarily designated school districts produces inferior individual and systemic outcomes. Still, I used the word "may" to express some uncertainty as to this point. The important part of that sentence, however, is the ending (which you do not quote) in which I stated that we may still reject E3's policy prescriptions even if there is reason to believe they may be right in identifying what some of the problems are. We may have other legitimate objections to spending public money on private or parochial education that may outweigh the potential educational benefits of doing so, and those objections may rest on certain deeply held principles such as separation of church and state, etc. So while I may think that E3 is right on some counts, that does not mean I cannot part ways with them when it comes to policy, as indeed I do.
As for the other quotation you chose ("As is well known, numerous municipalities across the country have instituted voucher programs that allow children residing in unsatisfactory school districts to attend school elsewhere."), this is simply a statement of fact. I recognize that many of these voucher programs place no restricions on where the public funds may be spent, and I am uncomfortable with that. I do not, however, begrudge students from disadvantaged backgrounds who have the additional misfortune of residing in failing school districts the opportunity to seek a better education elsewhere.
I believe there is room for nuanced positions here, but only if the extreme elements from both sides can be quieted long enough for the voices of reason to be heard.
I don't doubt that your view is what you say, but sometimes I find it difficult to tell what your view is.
Then please don't be so hasty to judge. Better to ask than to immediately charge "bias."
From May 14th:
anonymous
You say that, "Public Education is considered a right." Is it your opinion that it should be?>
teaneck blog
Fair question. You are right to pick up on my neutral phrasing- those words were indeed carefully chosen.
I do believe that every child in this country should be guaranteed the funding for an education from K-12. I don't believe that children should be forced to attend the local public schools in order to take advantage of that benefit. As is well known, numerous municipalities across the country have instituted voucher programs that allow children residing in unsatisfactory school districts to attend school elsewhere. I believe that school choice is a good thing because it allows students to be matched with the best environment for them and it forces schools to compete for students, and by extension, funding, which leads to an overall improvement in the product.
I look forward to a day when we can stop supporting dozens of redundant independent school districts with all the infrastructure and bureaucracy they require. It would be great to pay into a regional voucher scheme that would permit our schoolchildren to find the best environment for their needs while promoting efficiency and quality in education. But I also know that this is a remote possibility given all the entrenched interests and the major overhaul of existing structures that it would require. So for now I content myself with pushing for the most careful and responsible management of the system as currently constituted.
Looking at your entire comment, I think it was reasonable to assume that you favor vouchers and by implication public monies being paid to private schools.
You should have kept reading.
From the same May 14th thread:
Yes, you are certainly correct that the most controversial aspect of the school choice movement has been support for religious schools (though the Cleveland system, which ended up subsidizing that city's Catholic schools, has survived numerous legal challenges). However, I was not advocating a completely unrestricted voucher system when I discussed school choice in the context of answering whether I believed public education was a right. I was focused more on the "home rule" question- i.e. should each town operate its own independent school district and obligate its residents to enroll there if they want free public education.
I do not support issuing taxpayer funded vouchers that may be used to pay private school tuitions directly. I do, however, believe that some sort of consideration may be in order for parents of schoolchildren who opt out of the public school system. Those who forego a benefit that is coming to them free up resources for others. It may be just to make some portion of educational costs tax deductible to avoid the double taxation that comes with charging homeowners for local schools and having them pay for private education with after-tax dollars. But this would not be a local issue.
Whether you give a parent $1000 to pay toward private tuition or lower there taxes by $1000 if they pay the tuition it comes to the same thing. All you've done is create the illusion that it's not tax money to private schools.
Actually a income tax deduction or credit would not be identical. A voucher to cover the cost of private school tuition could be used by anyone whereas a tax deduction might favor the well to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home