Tom is just plain misinformed when he perpetrates the fallacy about a purported "decline in public education."
Public schools can successfully educate students and should be supported both financially and politically to do so. Research does not support an advantage to non-public schooling. An analysis of published research on this question found that: - Research results published in peer reviewed or referred journals were more likely to demonstrate that the effect of non-public schooling on student performance was not advantageous to public schooling. Research results not published in peer reviewed or referred journals were more likely to show a positive effect. - Research that controlled for selection bias was more likely to find either a mixed effect or no effect. Research that did not control for selection bias was more likely to find a positive effect. - The cumulative evidence of this analysis of published research studies revealed no advantage to non-public education (Zanmiller 42). I suggest that Tom and Senator Dick Day might benefit in the school envisioned by Tupac Shakur. Tupac vision included schools addressing the pressing social issues of the day with pedagogical themes relevant to your condition -- a school focused on students learning to "negotiate the worlds they occupy (Dyson 77)." Compare Tupac's vision to the current pedagogical theme where students are "taught to live in a fairy land that we are not even living in any more (ibid) " Stressing survival over repetition Tupac suggested classes in: Police Brutality, Apartheid, Racism in America, Why People are Hungry, Religious Cults, Scams and Drugs (ibid). What do these standardized tests really show? Would there be any differences by location in standardized test results if variables related to poverty were controlled for? How is this incessant media focus on the inferiority of children and youth living in central cities impacting their self esteem and commensurate capacity to perform on standardized tests? Research findings published prior to June 1997 strongly suggest that any advantage to non-public schooling is actually capturing the achievement of students attending independent schools, not charter or parochial schools. This is a major difference. Selection bias eliminates any standardized test differences between religious and charter schools. Additionally, now that the Archdiocese has chosen to substantially invest in non central city catholic schools, what will happen to their schools in the central city? Will this resource shift be a zero sum game? I doubt it. The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program and subsequent publications suggesting related positive outcomes have been debunked. What evidence is there that suggests an advantage to non-public schooling? May-be both Tom and Senator Day might take some of these standardized tests - and show us how they measure up. Works Cited: Dyson, Michael Eric. Holler If You Hear Me: Searching for Tupac Shakur. New York: Basic Civitus Books, 2001. Zanmiller, Mary C. Student Achievement By Type of School: Toward Closing the Achievement Gap Between African American and White Students. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1997. Mary C. Zanmiller West Seventh Neighborhood Saint Paul, MN USA -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Swift Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 9:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [StPaul] Do SPPS "suck"? _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
