School Vouchers

[Upchurch]

hm... and even if you could figure out how much is going specifically to schools, do I get to not pay that amount, since I don't have kids? After all, aren't I paying to educate other people's kids?

Or maybe we're all pitching in to educate all of our country's kids to at least a certain level, since literacy and basic skills like math are the key to a successful civilization.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

Or maybe we're all pitching in to educate all of our country's kids to at least a certain level, since literacy and basic skills like math are the key to a successful civilization.

And we're now back to why we have a public education system in the first place, and why all of us pay taxes to support it - even if we ourselves don't currently have kids enrolled in it.

After all, these kids are going to be voters. It's nice that most of them are at least able to read - even if they can't afford a private school.

 

[Upchurch]

After all, these kids are going to be voters. It's nice that most of them are at least able to read - even if they can't afford a private school.

Agreed. Does the voucher offer enough money to afford any private school that the student is scholastically qualified to attend or does it require additional money over and above the vouchers, thus still keeping children of poor families out?

If it does, then they'd be forced to attand a public school with drastically less funding then they have now, right?

 

[shanek]

What? So, no public schools, period? Brilliant.

No government schools. There's a difference.

 

[shanek]

Or maybe we're all pitching in to educate all of our country's kids to at least a certain level, since literacy and basic skills like math are the key to a successful civilization.

I posted a graph here awhile back showing illiteracy rates plummeting like a brick before there was any state or Federal taxpayer funding of schools, which didn't start up until the 1940s-'50s in the case of the states, and the '60s in the case of the Feds.

 

[Silicon]

No government schools.

Why stop there, shanek?! You're one word away from perfection.

"No Government!"

After all, isn't that the libertarian nirvana?

Isn't that your primary objection to the schools? Not that they are schools, but that they require a government to run them?

It seems to be your primary objection to everything you object to, at least in your postings on this site. At the very least it's your solution to every problem.

 

[shanek]

I couldn't locate the graph I did on literacy rates, so I made it again. The red line is the total rate of illiteracy of those above age 14. Since the black population would have started out at a great disadvantage here, since few slaves learned to read and write compared to the white population, the green line is the rate for whites only. Note that it was going down quite nicely until the 1940's, which is when the government started interfering in education. Before then, for both whites and blacks the illiteracy rate is plunging quite nicely. Note that afterwards the illiteracy rate for both groups actually jumps back up before going back down again.

At any rate, this graph shows that there isn't really any indication that illiteracy would be any worse under the previous, non-governmental education system.

The sources for the data in this graph are Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 and Ancestry and Language in the United States: November 1979.

 

[shanek]

Sorry...there was a problem attaching the graph. Here it is:

 

[shanek]

Why stop there, shanek?! You're one word away from perfection.

"No Government!"

After all, isn't that the libertarian nirvana?

No, it isn't. Libertarianism ≠ anarchy. I don't know where people are getting this idea, and I don't know how many times I'm going to have to sit here and refute it...especially to the same people over and over again!

 

[Silicon]

I posted a graph here awhile back showing illiteracy rates plummeting like a brick before there was any state or Federal taxpayer funding of schools, which didn't start up until the 1940s-'50s in the case of the states, and the '60s in the case of the Feds.

I looked up the data. It shows no such thing.

Illiteracy was plummetting, and it continues to plummet, ever since 1867, when Congress created the Department of Education, and they started to track literacy.

Now skanek, I don't know where you source your chart, but what you're really seeing in the numbers is a difference in the definition of literacy. The new standard is "functional literacy", which wasn't measured pre-1979.

That's why you see a jump on the numbers. It's a different standard of the test. Nobody tests the level of rudimentary literacy they tested in the past centuries. I'd say we have nearly 100% literacy by those standards, which were about the level of reading "The Cat in the Hat." Current tests require readers to read a dense piece of prose from a newspaper article, and be able to find facts and ascertain concepts, not just identify words.

BY NO MEANS do we have the level of illiteracy that America had in 1870, or even the 30's or 40's.


http://nces.ed.gov/naal/historicaldata/illiteracy.asp


EDIT:

Oh, now I see your graph, you're talking about a jump right around !!!! THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!

It actually starts 14 years after the great depression, and ends 14 years after the end of the great depression. Amazing coincidence that the survey is of people over age 14? I think not.



Here's a bulletin for you: Lots of kids weren't going to school during the great depression. They were working.

 

[shanek]

I looked up the data. It shows no such thing.

Explain the graph, then.

Illiteracy was plummetting, and it continues to plummet, ever since 1867, when Congress created the Department of Education, and they started to track literacy.

This is misleading. The current US Department of Education wasn't formed until 1979. The "Department of Education" that was formed in 1867 was quickly demoted to the "Office of Education" in 1868. It did little more than collect statistics (like illiteracy) and very quickly became inactive.

Now skanek, I don't know where you source your chart,

I told you:

The sources for the data in this graph are Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 and Ancestry and Language in the United States: November 1979.

but what you're really seeing in the numbers is a difference in the definition of literacy. The new standard is "functional literacy", which wasn't measured pre-1979.

And that is the last year for which there is data in the graph. Hence, there is no difference in the definition among the numbers provided.

That's why you see a jump on the numbers.

The jump in the numbers happened in the 1940s!

BY NO MEANS do we have the level of illiteracy that America had in 1870, or even the 30's or 40's.

When did I say we did? Are you deliberately trying to confuse people?

A strong downward trend in the decline of illiteracy rates was lessened in the 1940s as government became involved in education...as the graph clearly shows. There was no change in the definition of illiteracy during that time.

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/historicaldata/illiteracy.asp

Funny...the data here supports my graph, and is taken from the same sources!

 

[shanek]

Oh, now I see your graph, you're talking about a jump right around !!!! THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!

No, after the GD! After WWII, actually.

It actually starts 14 years after the great depression, and ends 14 years after the end of the great depression. Amazing coincidence that the survey is of people over age 14? I think not.

Here's a bulletin for you: Lots of kids weren't going to school during the great depression. They were working.

Look at the graph again. This jump continues on into the 1960's, which would entail people born after WWII! The jump continues for much longer than the GD did.

 

[Silicon]

Two things, Shanek,

How are you looking at this jump? What's your definition of the end of the jump?

My definition of the end of the jump is when it starts going back down. As I read your chart, that's around 1950, not continuing into the 1960's, although the whites only number does seem to go further (I picture a wave of post WWII European immigrants).

You say the jump continues for longer than the GD did. I see the jump starting at 1940, and going until about 1950, then literacy coming back.

So I see this jump lasting 10 years, starting in 1940.

Now the Great Depression was from 1929 to 1939. But this survey only looks at people who are over 14 years old. It takes some time before the people who didn't get any schooling during the depression to turn 14 years old. It takes about 10 years.

So 1929 + 10 years = 1939 -- approx. start of jump
and 1939 + 10 years = 1949 -- approx. end of jump


Now in your worldview, this jump corresponds with the entry of the US government into public education.

But (as you might throw back at me during a Second Amendment debate) corrolation does not prove causation(lots of guns in US vs. lots of gun crime in US).

Isn't it possible that you have Cause and Effect reversed?

Isn't it possible that the increased government focus on education is not the CAUSE of the rise in illiteracy, but that they were both caused by the same thing, namely the depression? The New Deal, bankrupt local governments, etc.


To me, I don't think it's at all surprising that we have a large number of illiterate 14-year-olds entering the census roles 10 years after the start of Great Depression.


Also, how free is that chart of yours from other factors, such as mass immigration, the varying birth-rate, etc?

There's the potential for a lot of statistical noise there, between the Great Depression, WWII, and the Baby Boom.


Now let's get back to your point. You say that goverment involvement is the cause?

Can you prove that?

This bobble on the chart is statistical noise caused by differing reporting methods and some VERY VERY extreme social upheavals. In fact, the most extreme social upheavals in living memory.

It seems ludicrious to me that you can draw the conclusion of government involvement as the cause of the decline from this data.

This chart proves nothing except your desire to believe anything that confirms your theories.

 

[Silicon]

BTW, Shanek,

You would do better to look at the source of that data, rather than your graph.

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/historicaldata/illiteracy.asp


For example,

The data in this table for the years 1870 to 1930 come from direct questions from
the decennial censuses of 1870 to 1930, and are therefore self-reported results.
The data for 1947, 1952, 1959, 1969, and 1979 were obtained from sample surveys;
they exclude the Armed Forces and inmates of institutions. The statistics for the
census years 1940 and 1950 were derived by estimating procedures.

Lots of differing methods. More noise.



Shannek said:

Hence, there is no difference in the definition among the numbers provided.

Guess not. I count 3 different methods.

 

[shanek]

How are you looking at this jump? What's your definition of the end of the jump?

My definition of the end of the jump is when it starts going back down.

Why is that a rational definition? Shouldn't it at the very least be when it goes down below the rate that it was when it began?

Probably the best definition is when it goes back down to where it would have been if the previous trend had continued...which, looking at the graph, would have to be 1980, if even that.

This chart proves nothing except your desire to believe anything that confirms your theories.

Uh-huh. What the chart proves, and proves beyong any reasonable doubt, is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER to think that literacy rates would be any worse under a completely private educaitonal system than they are now. NONE of your "rebuttals"—NONE OF THEM—refuted that point.

 

[Silicon]

Uh-huh. What the chart proves, and proves beyong any reasonable doubt, is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER to think that literacy rates would be any worse under a completely private educaitonal system than they are now. NONE of your "rebuttals"—NONE OF THEM—refuted that point.

Nothing to refute. You haven't proven your case.


YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.

Prove that public education caused that jump.


Prove that it wasn't the Great Depression, WWII, the Baby Boom, mass immigration.

Prove that a non-govermental education system would have handled those eras of American history better than our public schools did.


I'm not entirely sure that bump even exists, because of the 3 different reporting methods involved.

Shanek, statistics just aren't your forte.

 

[shanek]

YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.

NO I DIDN'T!!!!!

The original claim, which I was using the graph to refute, was Upchurch's:

Or maybe we're all pitching in to educate all of our country's kids to at least a certain level, since literacy and basic skills like math are the key to a successful civilization.

As the graph CLEARLY SHOWS, there is NO REASONABLE BASIS to believe that we'd be any less literate with private schools!

Period! End of statement, end of refutation!

 

[Silicon]

NO I DIDN'T!!!!!

The original claim, which I was using the graph to refute, was Upchurch's:



As the graph CLEARLY SHOWS, there is NO REASONABLE BASIS to believe that we'd be any less literate with private schools!

Period! End of statement, end of refutation!

Total BS.


Upchurch said that literacy and math are key to a sucessful society, and thus the need for society to spend money on it.

How do you dispute that claim with a chart that doesn't even talk about a successful society?


He didn't make any claim on the change in literacy rates, or historical data. All he said was WHY it is a GOAL.


YOU however, made a claim that said that your homemade chart proved that lower literacy rates were caused by government intervention in education. It proves no such thing.

Prove CAUSE. Don't prove corrolation. Prove CAUSE.


Why do you refuse to prove that the Government caused the rise in illiteracy?

Is it because you can't?

 

[shanek]

How do you dispute that claim with a chart that doesn't even talk about a successful society?

It talks about literacy, which was one of his criteria.

And if you read the context of his post, you'll see he was most definitely talking about the need for government education.

Why do you refuse to prove that the Government caused the rise in illiteracy?

Is it because you can't?

No, it's because I don't claim that. Duh.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

A strong downward trend in the decline of illiteracy rates was lessened in the 1940s as government became involved in education

Literacy asymptotically approaches zero in this data. I don't see a "strong downward trend" lessened around 1940. There's just a blip in the data around 1950. The source also says that a different data-gathering technique was used around then. By the way, who says that the drop in literacy over time should be linear?

I think your curve fit is showing you something that's not in the data.

Oh, and given the sort of literacy measured by that data, it's probably useless for determining the quality of education kids were getting before 1979. Most schools these days are trying to raise functional literacy - for which we don't have data going back that far.