Voucher System
Related Topics
citrine_s ...@yahoo.com (Citrine)
Dear all, I am conducting a public survey regarding voucher system, and results will only be used in my academic project. Please find the questionnaire at: http://www.my3q.com/home/citrine/voucher.phtml Thanks for your participation.
Citrine
"Marvin Margoshes" physchemnos...@telocity.com
Do you expect to get a statistically valid sample this way. If you don't, what's the point?
"Ray Drouillard" cos...@nospam-2.quixnet.net
It depends on what he wants to do with the statistics.
He can put a site up that is accessible to everyone, but only advertise it to people that he expects will provide a specific answer. That way, he can point to his "scientific" survey as "proof" that such-and-such has popular support.
Hey, the news services do it all the time. Fair is fair.
Ray
ke ...@zzzshsmedia.com (Kevin Killion)
Actually, that IS done upon occasion! Periodically, for example, Nielsen Media Research (the ratings people) has done tests in which they offer higher and higher incentives (money, mostly) to people who have refused to participate in their studies. Eventually, with enough money, they can get lots of these refusers to participate. The study after that is set on determining whether these refusers watch TV in any way different from those who accepted the normal offer.
It's just as wrong for a news service to set up a self-selected dial-in survey. Yes, fair is fair -- it's wrong for them, too.
-- Kevin Killion
"Ray Drouillard" cos...@nospam-2.quixnet.net
For the humor-challenged -- I am being flippant.
However, the word "wrong" begs a question. What exactly do you mean by "wrong"?
It is true that the results are less than valid. It is equally true that no crimes were committed.
Is it immoral? That question is somewhat slippery, because it depends on if you consider deception to be immoral. Even God tells us things that he knows we will take the wrong way. I believe there are even instances where he sets up "a strong deception" (I would have to look it up).
Was it wrong for me to wear camouflage when I was in the Army? Was it wrong for me to repair cryptographic equipment? If I'd had the misfortune to have been captured by the enemy (I am a peace-time vet), would it have been wrong for me to use any method possible to keep the enemy from getting information that they seek.
For that matter, are there any p***ages in the Bible that say that it is wrong to deceive? Certainly, lying to the Holy Spirit is a good way to end up dead (read Acts if you are in doubt of that). Beyond that, what is said in the scriptures?
I feel that it is wrong to lie to someone with whom you have a cooperative relationship. I suppose that puts the government in a gray area for some people.
Certainly, someone who lies is going to lose credibility. The news services never had much credibility with me, anyhow. Also, any prudent person who knows anything about statistical methodology is going to take *any* survey with a grain of salt.
Lest someone claim that I think lying, in general, is OK, I'll remind y'all that Satan is the prince of liars. You can't come up with a better negative role model than that.
Ray
ke ...@zzzshsmedia.com (Kevin Killion)
Interesting and thought provoking comments, there!
I guess if I had to justify the use of the word "wrong", it would be that this is more in the sense of a right and a wrong way to accomplish a task rather that a moral right or wrong.
But, to push it a bit further, let's take your sentence, "I feel that it is wrong to lie to someone with whom you have a cooperative relationship." A news station (or a newspaper, etc.) has a cooperative relationship with its audience. Many stations and papers even talk about the word "trust", as in, "the station that more people trust". Airing results that mean nothing in such a way as to suggest that they do mean something, violates that trust.
-- Kevin
"Raymond E. Griffith" rgrif...@vnet.net
Then, if the results are less than valid, what is the point of the exercise?
But I *really* hesitate to build a "right v. wrong" argument on the basis of "no crimes were committed".
I would say that abortion is wrong, even if legal. It is probably "legal" in most states to sleep with your neighbor's wife (I understand that a lot of the adultery statutes have been rescinded). Legal is not the equal of right.
Hmmmm. We need to be careful here. Two points are in order. The fact that God does something does not necessarily mean that we may do it (ex. He struck Uzzah dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant). Secondly, God is not the deceiver, Satan is.
If God tells us something He knows we will take the wrong way, that may not be a fault in Him, but in us. The truth is there if we can take it. For some items, there are legitimate reasons for disagreement about what was meant -- but the overall truth ought to be clear.
2 Thessalonians 2. To those who do not receive Christ, but completely reject Him, those people will be sent strong deceptions to believe a lie --
because they did not have pleasure in the truth, but in unrighteousness.
IOW, they get what they asked for.
You were preparing to face an enemy. You were not preparing to deceive someone who trusted you.
War presents many moral questions to those who must fight it. Trust is built upon a perception of the truthfulness of the person seeking trust.
Your war preparations are quite different from news media coverage both in target and intent. Or at least they should be....
Lots.
Leviticus 6:2 says it is "a tresp*** against the LORD" to deceive your neighbour.
Proverbs 24:28 tells you not to deceive your neighbor.
Proverbs 26:18-20 says 18 As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, 19 So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?
20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
Jeremiah 9:4-6 says that deception is the mark of those who refuse to know the Lord.
4 Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.
5 And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.
6 Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD.
Ezekiel 14 shows the Lord claiming to deceive those to seek counsel from the false prophets or idols. Again, this is an instance of getting what you ask for.
Matthew 24:4 notes: "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you." So we are to be on guard against deception!
Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
** WHO ** are deceivers ***ociated with? Evil men, those who "lie in wait" as if for prey.
The government does what it does, in part, because it is made up of ungodly men who see things in an ungodly manner and make up ungodly rules to meet the situations they wish to address.
Yep. So how much credibility ought Christians to have? How much lying can we "afford" to do?
Samuel Clemmens said "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".
Yep.
So the General Rule is to obey the 9th commandment.
Raymond
"cwg" c...@nomailplease.com
How can one answer these questions unless you define what you mean by "Voucher System".
For example, I would be in favor of a voucher system that grants vouchers based on a student's family income. The richer the family, the smaller the voucher. That way schools would be competing to attract students from the poorest families.
But for some reason this is never what people talk about when the talk about a "voucher system".
...
hru ...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
"cwg" c...@nomailplease.com
I don't see it as a reduction in benefits. Everyone would still get the same benefit -- a free public education. I'm just looking for a way to measure the actual cost of educating a person. I disagree with the premise of typical vouchers: that each student costs the same to educate so should receive an equal voucher. The cost of educating a specific child varies greatly from one to the next. I'll agree that family income is a less than perfect way to measure cost of education, but it was all I can think of and I think is better than nothing.
hru ...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
If anything is not a measure of the cost, it is family income. Need-based benefits work against the poor and not quite poor who are trying to do a little better, and also against the lower middle cl***. The present welfare rules often amount to a tax rate of more than 100%.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
"cwg" c...@nomailplease.com
wrote: I would disagree with that. Sure, public schools are not perfect. No education system can provide an education for all kids that is perfectly matched to their abilities. But public schools are required to, and do, try. By federal mandate public schools must provide education for _all_ children that is appropriate to their abilities. That is why special education costs are rising at stupifying rates. This is also why public schools have become the dumping ground for any kids that do not match the specific education model provided by any given private school.
Will all kids end up with an education completely compatible with their abilities? No, and they never will. Do public schools try to do this?
Yes, and at enormous cost. Do private schools try to do this? No, none of them could afford to educate the children whose education is most costly.
That is what is happening now. Vouchers will just accelerate that process, leaving less-than-average kids, and anyone else who didn't make the cut or whose parents weren't sharp enough to get them out, to wallow in public schools that have been stripped of their funding. The only way to solve that problem is to make sure that each kid out "shopping" for a school is carrying with him/her a voucher that is adequate to cover the cost of his/her education. That is the only thing that will enable each child to have school choice.
Giving each kid a voucher of equal value simply strips the bright kids out of public schools and leaves public schools to educate expensive students with reduced funds.
I'll go along with that, I just couldn't think of anything else.
Until a voucher program can be dreamed up that attempts to provide an appropriate education for _all_ kids, the way public schools do now, I am completely opposed to vouchers.
I doubt it is possible. Which is why for now I am in favor of fully supporting public schools to do the job we all agree needs to be done, and leaving private schools to operate with private funds.
hru ...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Special education, at this time, does almost nothing for the one who can proceed more quickly. The educationists are so set on children being with their age groups that they cannot consider placing children with their mental, instead of chronological, peers. This reduces the amount of useful education for almost all.
There are very few public schools which even make the attempt. To do so would require abandoning age grouping, abandoning heterogeneous cl***es, and in many cases, providing programs beyond the levels of the teachers.
When I say "abandon", I mean complete abandonment.
Do private schools try to do this? No, none of If the private schools try to mimic the public schools, of course they do not.
The public schools will not be stripped of their funding.
The weaker students, in cl***es which do not have to do something for the bright, can concentrate on teaching at their level. The performance of a school should not be evaluated by the overall scores of its students, but by how well each of its students does given the abilities of that particular student.
The only way to solve Most of the voucher programs do not go that far, nor should they. To do so would prevent people from paying for more.
The tendency to teach to the level of the warm bodies which inhabit the cl***room has reached the universities, and even doctoral programs. This means that junk gets taught, and the "education" is meaningless.
The bright and the dull should NEVER be in the same cl***.
The public schools do nothing of the sort. The only ones who think the present results of the schools are appropriate education for all are the ones who want to keep the bright from being educated.
At this time, even with unlimited funds, one could not provide good education for all; the present teachers could not do it.
The only immediate improvement which can be made int he public schools is to require that any school personnel who slow down the academic progress, and I do not mean grade level, of an individual student attempt to remediate it by paying for enough private tutoring, in addition to possibly other changes in education, to attempt to have the student catch up, and that they do it at their personal expense. If we had this, the teachers would demand vouchers so that the bright ones would not bankrupt them.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
"cwg" c...@nomailplease.com
wrote: I don't know where you live but in Minnesota _all_ public schools have a special track for bright kids. My Jr. & Sr. High calls it TAG for "talented and gifted". In addition, Junior and Senior students are elegible to take courses at the State University for free, with full credit, if their high school doesn't have enough demanding material for them.
I have no doubt that some states struggle with providing good education.
Usually those are the states that people move to because they have low taxes. Then they gripe when the state services suck.
Bright students carry with them a voucher that represents the cost of educating that student _plus_ a portion that had been used to subsidize the more expensive students in public school. When a bright student takes their voucher and walks to a private school, the private school gets the whole voucher and can pocket the money that goes beyond the cost of educating the student, since they are not required to educate weak students. Meanwhile, the public school is left having to educate all of the weaker students and without the subsidy that used to be taken from kids who were easy to educate -- since they've taken their money and left.
I agree. But if a school is allowed to pick and choose their students, the easiest way to get a good score is pick the good students and reject everyone else.
I agree. But why not in the same school system? Sending the bright and dull off to different schools with equal vouchers results in bright kids getting funded at a level far higher than needed for their education, and dull kids getting inadequate funding.
I already said the results are not perfect. But they are mandated by law to try, which is more than any private school does.
I never said it all had to be with the same teacher. Dull and bright kids could easily be seperated into different cl***es, and usually are, even while at the same school.
hou ...@tcfreenet.org (Jon Houts)
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3191089.html Merit scholarships found to benefit college students least likely to need them ***ociated Press Published Aug 27, 2002 MERI27 BOSTON -- Merit-based state scholarships tend to benefit college students who are least likely to need them, and in some cases are widening enrollment gaps between white and minority students, according to a study of programs in four states.
The analysis of programs in Georgia, Florida, New Mexico and Michigan suggests that states should weigh whether such programs meet their intended goals, said Gary Orfield, co-director of Harvard University's Civil Rights Project, which published the study.
The programs are intended to encourage in-state college enrollment across economic and social lines and to reward students who excel academically.
Since Georgia instituted its Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally (HOPE) program in 1993, 12 states have created merit-based scholarship programs, which award aid based on academic performance rather than need.
In the 2000-2001 academic year, the 12 programs gave out a combined $863 million in tuition aid to college students, almost three times the $308 million given out by the same states in need-based programs.
Georgia's lottery-funded HOPE program pays full tuition and fees at public schools in the state, or up to $3,000 at private in-state colleges. The program gave out about $300 million in 2000-2001.
Because of HOPE, enrollment for youth from families with incomes above $50,000 rose 11.4 percent, but the program has had no effect on enrollment of poorer youth.
Michigan's two-year-old Merit Award Scholarship Program, funded with money from the federal tobacco settlement, gives one-time grants of $2,500 to students who stay in-state, and $1,000 to students who go out of state or to private colleges. Blacks, who make up about 14 percent of the state's student population, received about 3.5 percent of the money awarded in 1999.
Florida's lottery-funded Bright Futures program, which started in 1997, gives aid based on grade point average and test scores. Whites made up 61 percent of students in 1998 but were 77 percent of aid recipients, while blacks made up almost 28 percent of students and were about 8 percent of aid recipients.
New Mexico's five-year-old program rewards students for their performance in their first college semester. Students in two-or four-year colleges who have a full course load and maintain at least a 2.5 grade point average receive a full scholarship to state-funded institutions the next semester.
But, according to the Harvard study, the program has largely benefited white and higher-income families.
"Raymond E. Griffith" rgrif...@vnet.net
Good intentions do not guarantee intended outcomes.
Merit-based sounds very nice. I admit to being attracted to it myself.
However, there are some *very* real issues that affect the perception of merit.
As a poor student, I had to work my way through college. The jobs were low-
paying (which meant I was always looking for more or for something better.
Did working affect academic performance? You'd better believe it! My first semester I suffered from a lack of sleep. I was working 60 hours/week to make ends meet and pay my school bills (I had no grants), and tried to carry a load of 14 hours. My grades were less than stellar.
I would have missed the merit-based scholarship *that* semester, certainly!
Those who are at an economic disadvantage will almost certainly have an educational disadvantage going along with it.
When I quit work and moved on campus and into debt, my grades improved dramatically. Of course, I paid for it later....
Yep. And they know it. But they won't change it.
It may not even be the case that the richer student is better prepared academically or is smarter. It may only be the case that the richer student has more time to study because he or she doesn't have to work.
Which is to be expected. The rich get richer -- and the government handouts, while the poor are denied help and are reviled for wanting it.
When a poor person (especially black, but not exclusively so) gets government ***istance, we call it "welfare". But when a rich person gets government ***istance, we call it "merit".
Yes, yes. I know. There are lots of ways to look at it. And this perspective makes a lot of people uncomfortable.
Raymond
"Chris Barnes" ch...@txbarnes.com
"Need" is a subjective term. "Merit" is objective.
Frankly, whether someone "needs" it or not is irrelevant. Whether they EARNED it or not is the pertinant question.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Raymond E. Griffith" rgrif...@vnet.net
Merit is subjective, too, if you input all of the appropriate parameters into the equation.
Put two people of equal ability into school. One is rich and doesn't have to work - so they can spend more time on their studies. The other is poor and has to work for a living, so they cannot spend as much time on the studies as the rich person. The rich person makes better grades and gets the scholarship. The poor person *could* have gotten the grades if he or she didn't work.
Now how does "merit" *objectively* tell you that the rich person somehow deserves the scholarship (i.e., subsidy or help) and the poor person doesn't?
Read James 5.
Raymond
"Chris Barnes" ch...@txbarnes.com
And now for an opposing word from someone else who worked his way through college without parental (or governmental) support (that would be me).
I completed my college education in 4 years (almost unheard of at this institution, where a 5 or even 6 year stint is more common), and did so earning 2 degrees.
I recieved a total of $100 of parental support (as a Christmas present in my sophmore year). My junior year, I received a Pell grant of (if I remember correctly, $1000).
The remainder of my college was paid for by: a) my wife working b) VA benefits (I spent time in the US Navy before entering college) c) part time, minimum wage jobs d) student loans We all make choices, eh?
(ps. I'm still paying off the student loans from grad school) Good. They shouldn't be asking for income statistics anyway.
Ah, the cause/effect claim. What is that they say about liars & statisticians?
It's at least as likely that they are richer because they are better prepared academically (ie. the reverse cause & effect you are claiming).
Wrongness frequently does.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
hru ...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Read what I wrote in this paragraph; it was a 9 year old taking honors high school work. A truly academic school will not even consider holding a child back because of age, or having a bright child repeat anything which has been learned before. It will not consider slowing down a cl*** because some cannot keep up; they will have to get instruction according to their abilities.
So change the funding formula.
When a bright student takes their Few voucher proposals would allow the student to take the whole state allocation; most are about 50%.
Meanwhile, If the weaker students are placed with others of their ability, the costs go down.
BTW, one of the complaints of the voucher opponents are that the bright would need more expensive education. I expect that there will be a need for more "distance" education for the bright, but this need not be that expensive. Also, a student can be bright in some areas but not in others, and some form of distance education is likely to be the only way out.
They are not mandated by law to try to give appropriate education for all, unless being kept in dumbed-down cl***es is appropriate.
When I say we do not have the teachers, I mean exactly that.
Anyone who could not handle the original "new math" could not teach mathematical concepts from any sort of logical approach.
When it was essentially abandoned, it had been reduced in what was a futile attempt to make it available for the teachers.
I do not know how much of this is due to the years of routine and memorization, and how much is due to lack of ability. It is the case that years of memorization seems to dull the ability to understand concepts.
You do not realize the range of abilities, and also background makes a difference. We need to get those who can take good college courses to taking an honors college program at "high school age", or even sooner. Otherwise, we are depriving them of several years of productive work, and depriving society of the benefits of their abilities.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
hru ...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
The idea of scholarships should be to promote the college education of those who can do quality college work, not to be hidden income taxes. At this time, the colleges may still be able to give quality education; if the push to using non-academic admission continues, only a few of the Ivy League and similar one will be able to. It is hard to give good programs in many of the largest schools, as the students have had so many years of utterly weak material that few have any ability left.
Translation: Are we observing quotas. The right should be the right to try; the schools are doing their best to keep the good ones from this.
Because they do not qualify! The "need-based" scholarship programs are an additional 20% income tax, not deductible on federal returns, for those at the middle income levels.
For one thing, the amounts are piddling; they are essentially token awards. As such, they amount to little more than prizes.
Because they do not qualify! Now possibly more blacks should be capable of qualifying, but the accursed public schools, which teach to the lowest common denominator, deprive them of the academic background needed. They may have received a high school diploma, but they have not received the appropriate education.
These programs are non-discriminatory. The use of race and income in evaluating the programs IS discriminatory.
A non-discriminatory program must not look at race or income in any way. If there is a difference in the proportions who can qualify, it is the fault of their heredity or their schools or their community attitude toward learning or the ability of their parents to provide the education the schools refuse to even make available, or the pressure to conform to the peer group instead of learning, or some other such effect. If a quota system is used, everything goes downhill. It has already gone rather far.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
racquet ...@nospam.hvc.rr.com
I can't wait.. How, pray tell, do you support THIS particular statement? Let's see some numbers, Herman.
Amazing! In the, what, ten years I've been reading and posting here I've yet to see ANYONE claim any such thing!? Let's see you produce a SINGLE quote or citation to that effect, Herman. In fact, posts here have CONSISTENTLY indicated exactly the OPPOSITE opinion. I don't know, Herman, this looks like two whoppers you've just told!
And of course you wouldn't bother to mention that its chief proponent felt it was introduced precipitously and several mathematicians felt it was seriously flawed from the outset and were strongly opposed to it. Seems like most people didn't want it; a position which, under other circumstances, a libertarian would support. Consistency (or indeed clarity) doesn't seem to be your strength, Herman.
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org
Knowing Hermans propensity for reading his own views into what other people say, I suspect that he refers to the claim that providing *individualized* "proper" (in his eyes) education for each bright student to maximize their progress, in the manner that he repetitively suggests, would be more expensive than the status quo. I've made that claim, and so have others.
However, giving them the approximately SAME level of education as everyone else is less expensive. And merely allowing them independent study using library materials and controlled-access distance-learning via the Internet (that being one approach to home-schooling), when they've completed required studies, would probably still be cheaper than what it costs for other kids. But directed individualized study of the sort that he wants is probably extremely expensive.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org
[example deleted] More importantly, "merit" as measured by GPA or SAT scores does not actually answer the question of whether they "EARNED it". My GPA and SAT scores were high, because I'm above average intelligence. I didn't work hard in high school and still got good grades. I got to college and struggled in many cl***es because of my bad habits and lack of study skills. Other kids who were less bright and worse students in high school, excelled in college because they knew how to work. They earned their education more than I did; but I got the (needed in my case) scholarship.
lojbab
"Raymond E. Griffith" rgrif...@vnet.net
Hmmm. Don't you mean that the parents or the family is richer? It is easily shown that those children who have the luxury to be born into richer families have more exposure to enriching material than children born into poorer families.
In any case, it seems to have the cart before the horse to say that a student attending college is richer because of better academic preparation.
Age factors, time working at a job, etc. Well, had you addressed the points I made, I might wonder whether I was wrong. You might have been able to convince me. But you chose *not* to contest anything that I said -- simply to give it a negative label. So without your instruction, I cannot conclude I was wrong.
BTW, a *right* position makes people uncomfortably more often than a wrong position -- see John 3:19-21. <wg> By the way - there is a Scripture p***age which illustrates that the Lord does not always reward someone simply on "merit". Remember the parable of the landholder who went looking for people to work in the fields. He offered those he met first thing in the morning a day's wage for working a day in his fields. He came out several more times looking for more workers.
At those times he didn't say specifically what they would earn.
At the end of the day, everyone received a day's wage for working in the fields, whether they were there all day or for only an hour.
Those who were there the longest and had done the most were incensed, since they had done the most, but they did not receive any more. People who underperformed them got the same amount! Read Matthew 20.
How dare the Master practice welfare! How dare He not judge entirely on merit! -- until you realize that none of us "merit" anything save hell, and what we get is grace.
Somehow I think that grace is an appropriate position for scholarships as well. You may disagree with me. That's OK.
Raymond
| To Top |