Re: Fwd: [eddra] public-private

[Michelle Montali <michel1282@cox.net>]

Furthermore, the stakeholders of these elite schools are keenly aware of the obvious fact that their hegemony rests on their exclusivity--and they are willing to pay dearly to maintain it.  Any voucher that could be produced by even the best organized of the less advantaged would be answered with an equal and immediate raise in tuition.
---- Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu> wrote: 
> 
> Yes, this is how it seems to operate in the bulk of the private 
> schools that are the target of voucher propaganda, the schools 
> available to working class families (certainly not the bourgeois 
> places chosen by the upper middle class and the super 
> wealthy).  Largely, these have been the Catholic and other religious 
> schools in urban centers.  Not often the sites for effective, 
> scientifically-based pedagogy, these private schools lack the 
> "disruptive" and low scoring kids who attend the nearby public 
> schools because they're PRIVATE schools and control who gets in and 
> who can stay in.  Pure demographics.
> 
> The parents CHOOSE these private schools, and understand that they 
> must cooperate with the program if they want to keep their kids 
> in.  That's called a "selection mechanism"   Also, it's only the more 
> organized families in each neighborhood (economically and socially) 
> that can get it together to take their kids out of the public system 
> and jump through the hoops to enter the private system.  Another 
> selection mechanism: the "pushy parents."  Most teachers, regardless 
> of their understand of pedagogy, become "more effective" in such 
> schools because of the orderly environment and high level of parent buy-in.
> 
> Very few of such teachers whom I've known, and taught, over the years 
> would last more than a week in the average low-income public school 
> because they lack the highly developed classroom management and 
> community relations skills that are the trademark of veteran public 
> school teachers.
> 
> Pete Farruggio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >"Charter, Private, Public Schools and Academic Achievement: New 
> >evidence from NAEP Mathematics, by Chris and Sarah Lubienski is 
> >probably as complete and sophisticated treatment as we have.  They 
> >conclude that the advantage of privates is due to 
> >demographics.  Privates have fewer special ed kids, fewer ELL's, 
> >fewer poor kids, more kids with wealthy parents, etc.  Controlling 
> >for these leaves public schools doing better.
> >
> >Of course, this is not terribly comforting.  It's like when poor 
> >urban schools use regression techniques to say we'd do as well as 
> >middle class schools if we didn't have all these poor kids.  The 
> >reality is that they do have all those poor kids and need to do 
> >something about it.
> >
> >The Lubienski's paper at 
> ><http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP111.pdf>www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP111.pdf.
> >
> >
> >Jerry
> >