I noticed that poll about "school choice" from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice and cosponsored by Cascade Policy Institute. The key finding, apparently, is that "nearly nine out of ten Oregonians" would send their kids to a private school "if they could." Forgive me, but I don't find this particularly enlightening. What parent wouldn't send their kid to a private school where the teachers are Ph.D.s and the student to staff ratio is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15:1? Not to mention the expansive curriculum and extensive extra-curricular options.

Of course, there's that pesky little detail of cost. Annual tuition at a private high school of this caliber will run you about $20K plus substantial fees. (Assuming, of course, that your kid could get in. Private schools tend to be pretty picky. No special needs, please.) If public schools had that kind of cash to play with, we could do a lot to improve the quality of students' experiences.

But the Oregon electorate, in its infinite wisdom, has preferred to starve the public sector. Meanwhile, the market mechnisms imposed to provide school choice -- principally charter schools -- have proven overall to be no better than public schools and typically much worse at providing a quality education for our kids. Be careful what you wish for.

"A mileage tax would discriminate against rural residents..."

Incorrect use of the word "discriminate." A mileage tax would be a greater hardship on those who habitually drive longer distances, but it's not discriminatory.

There are reasons why one might oppose a mileage tax, but this isn't one of them.

"Please address how the school choice system you're advocating for here would remove the advantage for the wealthy." Your hatred of successful people is showing.

The proper question to ask is: "How will this help the disadvantaged?"

Of course, the progressive answer is: "we don't care!"

Rob Kremer, about this:

"What school choice would do is give people all income levels the ability to send their kids to schools of their choosing - something now only available to the better off. "

We've had some experience now with school choice programs, with charter schools, with "small school within bigger school building" and other reform ideas.

Have the all been successful? Has every charter school passed financial audit? How about performance audits, test scores, and other measures?

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/charter-schools-win-battle-against-audits is a story about a state auditor told he had no jurisdiction to audit charter schools.

And then there are the logistics of "school choice". As I recall, there was at least one southern state which said they would provide transportation anywhere in the state if a child's family chose to move that student to another public school. How many school choice programs provide transportation for students like that?

How many parents have the time and energy to study schools and decide which school choice is best for their child? Do they have the time to visit multiple schools? Or do their work schedules prevent such a thing?

Are there studies of how many parents avail themselves of school choice programs?

And then there is the question of handicapped accessibility. That was not addressed the last time school choice was on Oregon's ballot. If a child breaks a leg, or has a medical condition (perm. or temporary) making it difficult / impossible to climb stairs, what does school choice provide for that child? Or doesn't that matter because the parents would always have a handicapped accessible school available to them, and besides that is not your problem?

I have been a substitute at a Catholic school as well as in public schools. Except for the church services and the small student body (similar to rural schools) there really wasn't much difference in my experience between that school and public schools. However, there was a woman who worked in the office there and was really worried about the prospects for school choice if it were to pass in Oregon: a) would children of the parish have first chance to enroll, or would it be a lottery open to all students? b) how often would the choice take place--once a year, once a semester, once a month, whenever the mood struck parents? Those preaching the theory of school choice never seemed to want to talk about such nitty gritty details.

Is there no benefit for children to being able to walk to elementary school?

Was desegregation (not a geographic model) always good for all students? When many people think of school bussing, that is what they think of --kids going to another part of town to school. But there are school districts which cover many square miles. When I was in high school, one of my friends lived in a rural area and took a 1.5 hour bus ride each day to and from school. Urban school choice programs are one thing, rural schooling is something else altogether.

You sound like you are more interested in a theory (school choice works well for everyone!) without telling us how it has worked out in actual practice.

Just looked up Kremer's charter school activities online. An article said one of his Arthur Academy schools teachers 125 students K-5.

Must be nice to have such a small school. I went to the school district website to find out the size of schools in my area of S. Salem. Except for the school at the rural southern end of the district, all the elementary schools in my vicinity in S. Salem range from 300-555 K-5 students. I know children who attend some of those schools and have really good teachers. There are also before/after school child care programs in many if not all those schools.

Is Kremer really saying he knows that all his students are getting a better education than any of the public school students in my area because school choice is always best?

Or is he trying to drum up business for Arthur Academy by claiming school choice is best for everyone?

. . .by claiming school choice is best for everyone? JK: I just love it. Another progressive against choice (for others.)

Thanks JK

Rob

When one reads the full report on the poll you discover that it does not support the conclusion that 90% of parents would leave the system. What it says is 83% of the responders select something other then a public school to obtain the best education for their child not that they wish to send them there. And as the responders were limited to likely voters the poll is not representative of the view of Oregon residents as a whole, to say nothing of the fact that 17% of the responders did not have school age kids. Then there is the question of bias on the part of the group commissioning the poll.

This is a poorly constructed poll, better suited for political campaign planning then guiding public policy making.

Has anyone asked the kids? Do they want to go halfway across town and be separated from their neighborhood friends? I still get together with some of my grade school and high school classmates from time to time and the shared geography is one of those intangible ties that bind.

As the Beach Boys sang, ""Be true to your school".

Jill, these news summaries are pep-rallies. You're judged on spirit, not debating points.

She isn't equating wealth with success; it's a fact of life. I know a guy in Florida that makes a salary of $450,000/year and has about 4x that in stock options to excercise at any time. He lives on about $15,000/year. When he was about 35, he decided he wanted to take it easy and do what he does for about $12/hour working for an an organization he totally believed in. Despite his best efforts he was increasingly disrespected, given an ultimatum to work for a big salary and had to quit, and was refused consideration by anyone else for 5 years, as "overqualified". Finally, he went to work for Bank of America, asked for every perk in the book and got it, lords it over everyone and is doing fine. Privately, he gives it all away and is now a great believer in philanthropy.

The take-home lesson is simple. You have to be materially well-off in this society to accomplish anything. The "almighty dollar" does not, does NOT rule! That's the inequality; money <> wealth. Wealth IS success. People have a picture in their little minds of how the world works. The most important thing is not having to adjust it, modify it or have it questioned. An executive that is willing to work for minimum threatens all of that. He is proof that the system will actively savage you if you cause that picture to be questioned, even if you're not militant and just trying to have a sweet life! He's found the happy medium. You have to make oddles, then quickly give it away, without one hand knowing what the other is doing.

Forgive me, I could only get through a couple pages of this before I gave up on reading all the comments. But a couple things of note:

1) Carla: The goal should not be to take away the advantage of the wealthy, we all want to make money to afford a "better life", this is the driving force of our nation, the goal is to take away the gross-disadvantages of those that cannot afford better.

2) Say what you will about issues of cost and culture but private schools have one HUGE advantage over public schools: the ability to get rid of bad teachers. Being a man who's 10 yr reunion is a stones throw away, I recall that the biggest advantages I had in my public school education were the handful of truly great teachers I had. My biggest obstacle was trying to learn from the handful that had no ability to connect with students, manage their classroom, or, at all, challenge us; the less tangible skills of the teaching profession.

Principals of public schools really lack the executive power of their counterparts in private schools. Their hands are tied by groups who have the teachers' best interest at heart instead of the students'. Re-training bad teachers is no substitute for replacing him/her with an effective one.

Andrew, are private schools bound by PL-94-142 and subsequent law and court decisions which say all children deserve an education, even those who may be physically and / or mentally handicapped?

I doubt it.

Which is why this is only half the story: "2) Say what you will about issues of cost and culture but private schools have one HUGE advantage over public schools: the ability to get rid of bad teachers."

Toledo, Ohio public schools have a system of peer review to get rid of bad teachers quicker than most school systems which have an administrative process. In Oregon, there was once an attempt to get rid of the Fair Dismissal process and allow the firing of any teacher at any time for any reason. The bill including that section finally passed, but not until after that provision was removed. Do you believe teachers should not sign employment contracts and only be month-to-month employees? If so, say so.

Denver, Colo. has a system of merit pay which was worked out in consultation with teachers instead of having it imposed upon teachers from above.

But those don't make good ideological arguments.

How many private or church schools are fully handicapped accessible and have programs for children with special needs? How many public schools have discipline programs where a student may be sentenced to lunch away from classmates (makes a real point with very social kids)?

Andrew, have you ever been a school volunteer, a coach, or worked in a school? Or is this all ideology to you? Most people who make statements like yours often have no idea about the reality of school classrooms (public or private). I have been a substitute teacher in both public and private school classrooms.

Meanwhile, the market mechnisms imposed to provide school choice -- principally charter schools -- have proven overall to be no better than public schools and typically much worse at providing a quality education for our kids. Be careful what you wish for.

Given the current charter schools laws in Oregon, one would expect this to be true. The current regulations give school districts an almost absolute veto over any charter proposal. Since public school districts aren't exactly welcoming of competition (especially in rural areas, where student choice is even more limited than it is in Oregon's more populous areas), it is almost impossible for a quality charter school proposal to make it through the process.

Several years ago, I was part of a group that went through this process. At that time, the large majority of Oregon's charter school proposals had been made by the districts themselves -- in order to tap into the $350,000 in grant money. The charter law simply provided another way for public schools to game the system. The people overseeing charter schools at ODE encourage this in-bredness because it helps protect their jobs without actually having to allow anything that looks like competition.

One of the best examples occurred in Corvallis a few years ago. There was a proposal for a charter with lots of kids and an excellent plan. It was rejected, because the charter would have taken funding away from the Corvallis School District. (Of course. The funding for the charter's kids would have gone to the charter school. Duh!) The State Board of Education upheld this decision on appeal. Using that kind of logic, the deck is pretty well stacked.

Leave aside the inmates-running-the-asylum vision that peer review often brings to mind, the Toledo program has made efforts toward resolving a legitimate problem. Kudos. Whether or not it is effective, the fact still remains that you're paying these teachers more to do the job that the principal should be able to do: managing her/his staff to provide the best education and educational environment for the students. The teachers in the Toledo program are making more money to do this job, money that could be spent in the classroom.

As for Toledo and Denver and any other idea that may help the answer, these programs are highlights because of their rarity and the effort it took to implement them. Principals, boards, unions, superintendents all had to sign-off to get much-needed help. Similar changes, when needed, are dramatically easier to accomplish for private schools.

Carla, you need to leave the sneering about weather reporting in the press to Jack Bogdanski, who has elevated sneering to an art form. You're a rank amateur by comparison.

JK makes the usual disingenuous criticism about progressives opposing school schoice "for other people". Portland Public Schools, for one, has a rather open system for parents to request in-district transfers. But more fundamentally, of course, Kaarlock's criticism is just part and parcel of the usual libertarian dogmatism that opposes public anything. If only we would all worship at the altar of laissez-faire and The Great Ayn Rand, everything would work out. Well, at least it would work out for the true believers and he well connected, and as for the rest, there's the good old Libertarian motto: I've got mine, Jack, now you fuck off.

joel dan walls ... Though the Portland Public Schools may have a "rather open system" with regard to transfers, PPS isn't the only district in Oregon. It isn't even the only one in Portland. Many other districts are less amenable to such parent/student requests, so students become captives of the local school system. Few districts are willing to let outside groups establish new schools, no matter how well planned or potentially valuable.

For many students in Oregon, it wouldn't matter how open districts are to transfers, because there aren't any other schools within a reasonable driving distance. Virtual schools are gaining some ground. However, they're only a partial answer, because students lose opportunities for socialization and many learning experiences requiring audio-visual aids or materials whose purchase is only economical when purchased for use by groups of students.

Carla: I get what you are driving at but, while it may seem a matter of semantics, there is a difference between quality education and equal education. If we, as a nation, were so interested in closing the gap between the education of the rich and the impoverished, the easiest path would be to lessen the education of the rich rather than increase the education of the poor.

The goal should not be to worry about what the rich can afford, they obviously have the means to worry/take care of themselves, but what education we are making available for those that cannot afford boutique schools. And further to focus on getting rid of the obstacles to this end.

My point is not that its important to realize we all want the same thing and I don't want language to get in the way. Now, Kum Ba Yah. Lets all hold hands. ;)

Hi there,

I authored the Oregon survey report and led the project. I'm happy to take any questions you may have at this point, as well discuss our motivations, goals, and some technical information regarding the survey.

Best,

Paul DiPerna

Carla, I was trying to have discussion about the issues but you want to make this a personal game. You obviously care more about winning an argument than holding an open discussion. To that end, I'm out.

Carla, I was trying to have discussion about the issues but you want to make this a personal game.

Actually Andrew--everything I've written here has been about the issues. If the context that I added to what you've offered so far doesn't sit well with you, perhaps you could let us know why. That's certainly worthwhile to know.

In the meantime, I think its unfortunate that none of the advocates for school choice are willing to discuss the specific scenario I've posited. That inability or unwillingness certainly seems to pull a rug out from under the idea that the poor will be given the same access as the wealthy under the "choice" plan.

"I do believe however that applying the concepts of free-market economics to the education system of the United States is absolutely perilous and will yield an unprecedented chasm between the education of wealthy children and those who come from poverty. "

Carla is right about this. What the school choice advocates don't want to talk about is the details:

• how do poor/low income/ parents working long hours avail themselves of "school choice", exactly?

• what about the parents of special needs kids--in need of handicap accessibility because they are wheelchair bound or otherwise have trouble with mobility, or children who may be in the special ed classrooms of public schools?

• by what measure (financial audits, test scores, graduates getting into colleges, or any other measure) do "choice" schools do as well as public schools if they are schools open to all comers (some charter schools use a lottery system).

Deming, the management expert from roughly the 2nd half of the 20th century, had a saying, "In God we trust, all others must present data".

What did Milton Friedman think of Deming? And does Deming's saying not apply to school choice because all good people believe in school choice therefore no data is necessary?

There are actually a lot of studies and data on school choice implementation. We can start with the surveys if you like, or you can see a succinct overview of the research here:

http://www.amazon.com/School-Choice-Findings-Herbert-Walberg/dp/193399505X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231884288&sr=8-2

... Walberg's collection is pretty current through 2007.

The Friedman Foundation also does empirical research, along with surveys:

http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/research/ShowFilteredResearch.do?method=friedman

Hope that information helps,

Paul

Mr. DiPerna:

While I'm sure those findings are interesting (Herbert-Walberg), this was published by the Cato Institute, which is not an unbiased organization when it comes to school choice. I recognize that I may be asking the impossible, but I believe these studies would have credibility if the findings were paid for and published by a source without an articulated bias.

In addition, it would be appropriate for you to disclose your relationship with the Friedman Foundation when you leave comments here. I'm assuming that you have some sort paid job--but it would be an appropriate piece of information for readers who wish to understand where you're coming from and why.

Carla, maybe I should been more clear that I work at the Friedman Foundation. I apologize if that upset you.

I introduced myself by saying that I authored the report and led the project, and so I assumed anyone familiar with the survey report would make the connection.

Also, not one for formality, feel free to call me Paul.

To your comments...

As long as a researcher's methods are publicly available and transparent, then that's what really matters, right?

Everyone has opinions and views, right? Including scientists and academics. The important thing is to set up research design, procedures, and disclosure of the methods in such a way that research can be replicated and checked..

Publicized methodology will minimize potential for bias.

Before making a blanket judgment without reading any of the research, we need to ask these questions:

Does a study publish its methods?

Is the research verifiable? (i.e. can it be replicated?)

If yes to both questions, then it doesn't matter the opinions and views of the researchers, left, right, or otherwise... right?

Please at least look at the research in Walberg's book before making generalizations and stereotyping.

And if you want additional resources on school choice, here are some high-quality Brookings books:

http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2005/schoolchoicepolicydesign.aspx

http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2004/educatingcitizens.aspx

Anyway, besides my current organization, most of the best empirical research on school choice has gone through the following institutions:

Harvard, Brookings, RAND, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Princeton, and Arkansas

Paul:

I'm not upset, but I accept your apology. It's simply a matter of appropriate disclosure and having been down that road myself, I hoped to help you avoid that same pitfall. Why we're at it tho, what's your title and job for the organization?

As long as a researcher's methods are publicly available and transparent, then that's what really matters, right?

Not completely. Who pays for the research matters. For example, its appropriate to be skeptical of an environmental study of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska if the study is paid for and disseminated by Exxon. Even if the researcher(s) claim transparency and open availability.

I sincerely don't believe I'm generalizing and stereotyping this research. What I am doing is calling into question whether or not there is possible bias, given the previously articulated advocacy by the funding organization. That's why I asked for sources outside of Cato, Friedman, Cascade Policy, etc.

To that end, I appreciate your efforts at providing them.

Paul, I checked out one of your links from Brookings and found this "Getting Choice Right assesses the basic mechanics of school choice, with a focus on the question of how, if the nation decides to expand choice, it can be implemented in a way to benefit the most students while minimizing any social costs............................ In Getting Choice Right, distinguished contributors analyze the potential benefits, the potential risks, and the policy options associated with a move toward a universal system of school choice. "

Getting Choice Right apparently says that there are both potential benefits and potential risks.

Are those at the Friedman Foundation as willing to talk about the potential risks as the potential benefits?

BTW anyone who thinks principals never play favorites needs to get out more.

Carla, I don't have time to describe mmy bio, but it can be found on the website here:

http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/about/ShowBiography.do?id=30&staffType=management

Feel free to disclose your professional information here as well, as that can give readers a fuller picture of our comments.

When I gave those earlier Brookings references, I probably should have stated that I worked there as well for 6+ years.

Not completely. Who pays for the research matters. For example, its appropriate to be skeptical of an environmental study of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska if the study is paid for and disseminated by Exxon. Even if the researcher(s) claim transparency and open availability.

The Friedman Foundation fully supports its own research. We disclose our methods and the research is replicable with time and research capacity.

Please be careful about how far you go to suggest someone is manipulating or injecting bias into the results.

I'll speak to any questions regarding the survey or anything personal, but otherwise, I think I have to respectfully let go of this thread.

LT, the Friedman Foundation has critically evaluated existing school choice systems. See here:

http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/downloadFile.do?id=268

We do this about every two years. But even in those weaker systems, parents have more flexibility and ability to choose schools when compared to the status quo.

Like you noticed, in a lot of school choice research, design tends to be addressed quite often.

Design and implementation are very important to school choice systems.

The status quo faces the same potential for risks and benefits, faces the same challenges, as school choice design. All we have to do is follow the statewide news.

We hear stories about school violence/safety, academic quality, curricula, testing, accountability, funding, etc. All of these are ongoing concerns in the status quo system, right? These challenges will always persist, but the systems address them in different ways.

Contrast to status quo, school choice design is intended to allow parents to be proactive or reactive when make schooling decisions wrt these concerns above (they have more authority...), rather than having to rely on school boards and administrators to make decisions for them. This is not my opinion.. this is just the way it is.

I have, many times. I used to be the netroots outreach for Jeff Merkley. Now I work for Compassion & Choices, a national nonprofit (compassionandchoices.org) as their Online Community Builder. I'm also the Fellow here at Blue Oregon.

I'm new to Blue Oregon as of yesterday (this blog is well done, btw), so I didn't see this information. Anyway you have a great background in the online community space. Thanks for sharing that information..

Interesting. What was your position with them?

I was a research analyst, and then assistant director for the Brown Center on Education Policy. I loved it there.

I'd say its very healthy for an open society to express such skepticism on a regular basis and to demand more researching and sourcing from unbiased places.

Those who conduct and use that research would be well-served by not only embracing those demands but encouraging them.

In general, I can't agree more...

I guess my only quibble would be to say there is an organization without inherent bias does not exist, as far as I can tell. All organizations have mission statements, and so all organizations have a point of view and pre-determined focus to some degree.

In any event, healthy skepticism for new research is something we both can agree on :)

In the Arne Duncan hearings, a number of subjects came up. Preschool, getting children ready for school, good nutrition, teacher retention programs so they don't burn out in the first few years, among other things.

And regardless of the things said here, not everyone thinks that public schools are awful.

http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/197

has some interesting discussions.

And this is who they are http://www.greatschools.net/about/whoWeAre.page

They talk about learning disabilities on their site and have some people who say they went to good public schools. Does the Friedman Foundation talk about private schools and how they handle disabled students?

The Great Schools folks seem to be educational professionals first and free marketeers second.

That might have something to do with their founding.

"SAN MATEO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 16, 1998--GreatSchools, a new nonprofit organization, today launches the world's most comprehensive online guide to public schools at http://www.greatschools.net.

A unique collaboration between parent, school, business, and community leaders, GreatSchools goes live with 100 in-depth Silicon Valley school profiles that cover performance, curriculum, community partnerships, leadership, and resources. Users can take the first look at the guide at the launch event Sept. 16, from 4 to 7 p.m. at Silicon Graphics Inc."

Paul, you have every right to your views. I think what Carla and I have been saying is that there is a whole wide world out there. And esp. now, given recent election results, it is obvious that there are opinions out there that the Milton Friedman folks may not agree with. That is what happens in a free country.

"Choice" means choosing what sources of information to believe. And that not all families think the local public school is awful. I went to excellent public schools.

What I have not seen is the sort of research which compares random students from public schools and random students from private/parochial schools.

My nieces graduated with honors from S. Medford HS and had a rigorous curriculum in a relatively small school. They both were admitted to private colleges, graduated, and were hired into professional jobs.

Just now I looked and there are 4 private high schools in Jackson County. One Christian, one Catholic, 2 alternative schools.

Paul, what I am worried about (and perhaps Carla is too) is that you don't talk yourself into a corner where you claim, for instance, that my nieces would have gotten a better high school education had they not gone to public high school. Parenting makes a difference in the lives of students, as does nutrition, outside activities, and other factors.

I just hope, Paul, you are not saying that no child whose parents don't have access to "school choice" can succeed as an adult. Some of your rhetoric comes close to that, IMO.

Also, I wonder if you are a school volunteer. Any school, public or private, can benefit from school classroom volunteers, coaches for events like a big local relay we have here, people who can share their skills with students.

It sometimes sounds, Paul, as if you care more about the principle of school choice than you do about the actual school kids. If a child is happy in school, succeeding academically, and has friends at that school, should that child stay at that school? Or be moved in the interest of "school choice" into a private school? That is the question.

Are you saying every public school in the US is a failure and every private school is a success in every way, never had financial problems, never has discipline problems, never has parents angry with the administration of the school?

Transfer policies vary widely among districts. Private schools have capacity limitations. If it is a school of 200 students and 300 children wanted to attend, saying "we believe in school choice" will not solve that problem.

Studies are one thing, real life is something else. I'm not sure you understand the difference.

For whatever reason I've had a tough time today with posting.. the following "there is an organization without inherent bias does not exist, as far as I can tell." should have read "I know of no formal organization without inherent bias to some degree."

Sorry about that.

For LT's post..

Does the Friedman Foundation talk about private schools and how they handle disabled students?

We are planning to examine this further.. Right now there is anecdotal evidence in Florida that the tax-credit scholarship program there has actually spurred the creation of special ed schools to fill voids left by BOTH existing private and public schools..

So in this case, the system appears to be adding options for special ed parents.

I'm also communicating with parent-organized groups in KY, NV, FL, and some other states to better understand how existing schools (whether public or private) are unable to meet needs of their students. My basic takeaway from parents right now is that it is more important and user-friendly to have choices within a system of schools, rather than simply trying to push for changes within a single school, which tends to be the status quo for special needs families...

And regardless of the things said here, not everyone thinks that public schools are awful.

Again, just to be clear, I don't believe all public schools are awful, and neither does the foundation take that view. Our reform focus is on the system of schooling, including how we finance schools and issues of parental engagement. We do not set out to arbitrarily bash public schools. I really mean that..

Paul, you have every right to your views. I think what Carla and I have been saying is that there is a whole wide world out there. And esp. now, given recent election results, it is obvious that there are opinions out there that the Milton Friedman folks may not agree with. That is what happens in a free country.

I respect your right to your views as well.

Let's not conflate the focus on school choice to other theories or positions by Milton Friedman. Others can take you up on those economic arguments.

"Choice" means choosing what sources of information to believe. And that not all families think the local public school is awful. I went to excellent public schools.

I also went to excellent public schools, as well as private schools. More important to focus on student learning on what schools (public or private) contribute to maximizing learning.. My view is that the private/public dichotomy is increasingly outdated and less useful when we as a society think about how to produce graduates (a key school outcome) who contribute to the "public good."

What I have not seen is the sort of research which compares random students from public schools and random students from private/parochial schools.

I appreciate the call for research rigor..

But to be fair, shouldn't we also be requiring this rigor of those who advocate the status quo?

In any event, the following sources are all of the school choice studies (through 2008) that incorporate randomization and experimental research design..

Cowen, Joshua M. 2008. “School Choice as a Latent Variable: Estimating the ‘Complier Average Causal Effect’ of Vouchers in Charlotte.” Policy Studies Journal 36 (2).

Wolf, Patrick, Babette Gutmann, Michael Puma, Brian Kisida, Lou Rizzo, Nada Eissa, and Marsha Silverberg. 2008. Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Two Years. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Gains for the sub-groups, consisting of 88% of students, who were higher performing at baseline, first year applicants, or applicants from non-SINI schools)

Peterson, Paul E., and William G. Howell. 2004. “Efficiency, Bias, and Classification Schemes: A Response to Alan B. Krueger and Pei Zhu.” American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5): 699-717. (New York City: Gains for African Americans)

Krueger, Alan B., and Pei Zhu. 2004. “Another Look at the New York City School Voucher Experiment,” The American Behavioral Scientist 47 (5):658–698.

Barnard, John, Constantine E. Frangakis, Jennifer L. Hill, and Donald B. Rubin. 2003. “Principal Stratification Approach to Broken Randomized Experiments: A Case Study of School Choice Vouchers in New York City,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 98 (462):299–323. (Gains for African Americans)

Howell, William G., Patrick J. Wolf, David E. Campbell, and Paul E. Peterson. 2002. “School Vouchers and Academic Performance: Results from Three Randomized Field Trials.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, April, pp. 191-217. (Washington, DC: Gains for all participants, almost all were African Americans)

Howell, William G., Patrick J. Wolf, David E. Campbell, and Paul E. Peterson. 2002. “School Vouchers and Academic Performance: Results from Three Randomized Field Trials.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, April, pp. 191-217. (Dayton, Ohio: Gains for African Americans)

Greene, Jay P. 2001. “Vouchers in Charlotte,” Education Matters 1 (2):55-60.

Greene, Jay P., Paul E. Peterson, and Jiangtao Du. 1999. “Effectiveness of School Choice: The Milwaukee Experiment.” Education and Urban Society, 31, January, pp. 190-213.

Rouse, Cecilia E. 1998. “Private School Vouchers and Student Achievement: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2): 553-602.

Paul, what I am worried about (and perhaps Carla is too) is that you don't talk yourself into a corner where you claim, for instance, that my nieces would have gotten a better high school education had they not gone to public high school.

First, I don't make that claim. If you received my message that way, then it was a miscommunication..

Isn't the bottom line that your nieces got very good educations and enriching experiences? Who cares if the school is public or private.. I would not make the argument that they would have gotten a better education in a private or public school. What I would argue is that a system that allows that choice between publics and privates, and possibility for schooling "customization" is an optimal system. And based on evidence, all schools should improve due to the "wisdom of crowds" effect or "free market" (whatever you want to call it..) Students and families are allowed flexibility, and schools adapt and improve. Again we are seeing this happen in existing programs. It's not theoretical or conjecture.

I just hope, Paul, you are not saying that no child whose parents don't have access to "school choice" can succeed as an adult. Some of your rhetoric comes close to that, IMO.

Sorry, you lost me.. where do say or imply that?

I feel like you're putting words in my mouth.

School choice systems expand parental options. That is an observation-based statement, not an opinion. The option doesn't guarantee success, just like the status quo does not, but it does allow parents and families flexibility to meet their child's needs and priorities. This just the way it is, and the truth.

You don't have to believe me. Go and interview any parents or students who have received scholarships from the Children's Scholarship Fund. That is a working example and resource for you to see school choice as it plays out in the real world.

It sometimes sounds, Paul, as if you care more about the principle of school choice than you do about the actual school kids.

Again, you're getting personal, which is not cool..

Are you saying every public school in the US is a failure and every private school is a success in every way, never had financial problems, never has discipline problems, never has parents angry with the administration of the school?

This should not be about public vs. private. School choice is about having access to both.

You are painting me as a free market ideologue.. I try to be a pragmatist as best I can, and let observations have the final say on my views wrt public policy.

When it comes to K-12, I see roles for both market forces and government regulations. We just need to be smart about how things are designed and implemented.

MO the status quo today swings the pendulum way too far on the government side, and effectively neuters parental responsibility, authority, and their real power in the system. Seriously. Anyway, my views on school choice have been shaped by talking to real families who have received scholarships and vouchers, or who have sent their kids to charter schools. The research provides compelling evidence that complements parent/student/family stories.. this is all based on observation, and not some fundamentalist ideology.

I hope that makes sense.

If a child is happy in school, succeeding academically, and has friends at that school, should that child stay at that school? Or be moved in the interest of "school choice" into a private school? That is the question.

That parents should do what's right for the child, no? And if it's the public school, great. If private school, great. School type is not the important thing to focus on, right?

It's the opportunity to make the decision.

The point is that many, MANY parents do not have that opportunity to even entertain the question you just posed to me..

Thanks for the loaded questions. Didn’t you say you have a problem with those in an earlier comment?

LT, I re-read my last comment, and I'm sorry for that last bit of snarkiness. I'm generally not a big fan of that kind of tone in blogs, and I regret that I let things slide in the very last part of my comment.

Anyway, I believe this kind of public debate is healthy as long as folks don't bait each other and get personal.

Thanks, Paul.

About public schools and special ed.

If PL 94-142 is not working, it is time to ask Congress to improve it. If the federal government is not living up to promised funding for special ed, they should do so. To learn more about the origins of special ed, read the book Karen by Killea, and I think the name of the sequel was With Love from Karen. I first read those books roughly 40 years ago. A friend serving in Vietnam at that time had read Karen and sent it to me.

Whenever I run into school choice advocates, I ask them about handicapped accessiblity and special ed, and I've never talked to one such advocate who saw it as a high priority. If that is changing, great.

"You don't have to believe me. Go and interview any parents or students who have received scholarships from the Children's Scholarship Fund. "

Living in Salem, I should go where to interview which parents who wouldn't know me but would consent to an interview if I said "Paul sent me" ? If that is your view, you need to get out more.

My question is how many students in how many counties have gotten the scholarships.

I think debate is healthy, but I also have long been skeptical of "we have this great idea, therefore it will work as long as no one asks too many practical questions".

I am not ready to throw out the current school district system until there is a lot more proof than just "Randomized Trials" or other journal articles. Something which worked in one jurisdiction will work in another jurisdiction with no problems? If that is your view, you need to come out of the ivory tower and interact with real life.

"Privatization is always better than the public sector" is not a philosophy I believe in.

What are the graduation requirements for private high schools? How do they differ among themselves and with similar public schools? What private primary schools which take all comers (lottery system or whatever) have proven to be more successful -- for instance, all children reading to grade level by 3rd grade from reading aloud to comprehension, or some other measure which is more than just standardized tests where kids mark a bubble on a score card or computer for the right answer, which could not be duplicated by a public school with the same framework?

By that I mean if a K-3 program has class size of less than 20, it will likely be more successful than a program where there are 30 students in the morning kindergarten and 30 students in the afternoon kindergarten.

I base that on student teaching 4 decades ago in a college town public kindergarten with 30 students and one teacher who helped her teacher-student ratio by having student teachers every year. Also, by having substituted in both parochial and small town public schools and seeing little difference between them.

Journal articles and think tanks are one thing, but Paul, what is your real world experience? Do you really think the average person will print out your list of journal articles and take it to the nearest library which might have access to those journals?

Or would it have been smarter to provide URLs like this one to make your point.

http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/01/13/raising-keynes-an-old-economist-finds-new-rock-star-status/

Yes, I was always more on the Keynes side of the spectrum than the Friedman side. And now that Republicans have lost their hold on Washington, no one can get away with saying all good people should be on the Friedman side, as we saw from recent years, esp. 1995-2006.

How many schools have you visited? Have you ever been a school volunteer? What experience do you have with actual classrooms, or is this all theory to you?

How many schools have you visited? Have you ever been a school volunteer? What experience do you have with actual classrooms, or is this all theory to you?

No, it's not... Over the last two years I have visited schools and talked with students, parents, and teachers in more than a dozen states. That is part of my work, and something I thoroughly enjoy.

LT, you're trying to start a flame war and I won't take the bait. Sorry.

<hr/>