Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Achievement’

Can you renounce your state citizenship? (more…)

Read Full Post »

There’s an interesting post on the Economist blog today about TABOR, and how it has worked in Colorado and how it might, or might not, work in Maine.

Colorado’s TABOR mandated that taxation and state spending could grow no faster than inflation, adjusted for changes in state population, without approval by voter referendum.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

The Journal has an interesting article on a new study that adds fuel to the education reform fire.   The study, which the journal calls the most comprehensive to date, found that:

New York charter applicants are more likely than the average New York family to be black, poor and living in homes with adults who possess fewer education credentials. But positive results already begin to emerge by the third grade: The average charter student is scoring 5.8 points higher than his lotteried-out peers in math and 5.3 points higher in English. In grades four through eight, the charter student jumps ahead by 5 more points each year in math and 3.6 points each year in English.

Charter students are also shrinking the learning gap between low-income minorities and more affluent whites. “On average,” the report concludes, “a student who attended a charter school for all of the grades kindergarten through eight would close about 86% of the ‘Scarsdale-Harlem achievement gap’ in math and 66% of the achievement gap in English.”

This shoots holes in the ridiculous argument that charter schools, and freedom in general, benefits only the rich.  I’ve heard that theory vehemently advanced by people whose intellect I otherwise respect, but it doesn’t make any sense at all.

The rich, the privileged, already have access to all kinds of opportunity.  That’s why they’re called “privileged”.  The poor, or the “disadvantaged” do not, almost by definition. Increasing the amount of choice or liberty in education doesn’t further disadvantage the disadvantaged.

True, this scheme probably does benefit the rich students as well, but the marginal impact on those already free to choose is significantly  less important than the drastic increases that accrue to the poor students.  Arguments to the contrary strike me as just petty vindictiveness directed at the upper crusts.  “You already have some choice, why should you get more?”

The real question is “why should we continue to prevent those without options from improving their lot?”

Read Full Post »