Re: question for Bracey on Re: Fw:

[Gerald Bracey <gbracey@starpower.net>]

I've seen several comments in various places to the effect
that the study shows that publics do as well or better than
privates.  As if the publics had simply outscored the
privates.  That's not true. It's both simplistic and wrong to
say that.  The study shows that if the publics had the same
clientele as the privates their 4th graders would do better,
their 8th graders would do as well in math, but still trail a
little in reading. But they don't have the same clientele. 
The numbers are comforting in that the forestall people from
saying public schools are lousy places for kids, but the
publics still have to figure out how to educate their harder
to reach pupils.

In the New York Times today the announcement of a proposed
national voucher program gets muted by the results of the
study.  It's harder to sell vouchers if you can't say the
publics are lousy places for kids. The vouchers would be for
kids not in failing schools but in schools that failed to
raise test scores enough for 5 years. Of course, by 2014,
that'll be just about everyone. 

Today's Times piece also answered a question:  Since I knew
this announcement was coming yesterday, why did the ED release
the study on Friday just two working days prior?  Answer:
Because spellings didn't know the study existed.  Whitehurst
says he sent it to her 2 weeks ago, but didn't call her
attention to it.  Not that she COULD read it even if she
wanted to.  Anyone who calls a sample of 725,000 "small" is
not reading much statistical literature. 

Jerry