Hacker News Reader

Comment by vel0city | Hacker News Reader

Voucher programs are just going to flood the "education market" with substandard schools teaching things like humans walked with dinosaurs a few thousand years ago before the great flood. They're going to extract profits from our tax dollars to give us a worse quality service.

We'll see a lot of new schools open up, spend a few years collecting profits, then get shut down for substandard quality after effectively failing to teach kids for those few years. Meanwhile the public schools which can't be choosy will end up with fewer resources and have worse outcomes for the kids who have parents who can't afford private transportation to the few nicer, choosier voucher schools.

View on HN

Being able to read the Bible would be a big improvement on say the Baltimore school system, which spends $22,500 per year per student: https://www.city-journal.org/article/are-baltimore-students-... (“According to the 2022 NAEP test, only 10 percent of fourth-graders and 15 percent of eighth-graders in Baltimore’s public schools are proficient in reading.”)

Literally, madrassas in Pakistan that just teach the kids to read the Quran would be an upgrade.

Those numbers do not mean what you seem to think. 1st, proficiency on that test is a pretty high bar. There are kids making perfectly adequate progress who don’t score proficient. Second, average per-pupil costs are meaningless. Baltimore city pays for two of my kids’ educations. One costs the city about $8k (the money that a school gets for a kid with no extra needs). The other costs well over $100k, due to significant disabilities. Baltimore has a disproportionate number of kids with significant needs of some sort, including learning disabilities, extreme family poverty, and ESL learners. Those kids need extra resources. A voucher system isn’t going to change that.

>Those numbers do not mean what you seem to think

Those numbers are actually painting a rosier picture of what is actually happening in Baltimore and other cities. In 23 out of 150 school, zero students - none! - were proficient in math. Not a single student. There is simply no way to put lipstick on that pig.

>The Maryland State Department of Education recently released the 2022 state test results known as MCAP, Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program.

>Baltimore City’s math scores were the lowest in the state. Just 7% of third through eighth graders tested proficient in math, which means 93% could not do math at grade level.

>But that’s not all. WBFF combed through the scores at all 150 City Schools where the state math test was given. In 23 Baltimore City schools, there were zero students who tested proficient in math.

https://katv.com/news/nation-world/23-baltimore-schools-have...

Not saying they are useless but standardized tests only work for kids who take them seriously.

I recall taking these as a kid, and there were kids who would just fill in the bubbles. They would not even read the questions. They thought it was funny.

In the other 127 schools, what percentage of students were proficient in math? How about other schools given the same test? It's hard to draw conclusions without context as to what an average or above average school scores in these tests.

>In the other 127 schools, what percentage of students were proficient in math?

Citywide the number was 7%. Better than 0 I suppose but still awful.

>Just 7% of third through eighth graders tested proficient in math, which means 93% could not do math at grade level.

How about outside the city? This is a statewide test, how are other areas doing?

So when we have anecdotes, we get told to look at the stats for objective facts. Alternatively, when we do have stats, we get told "no those numbers do not mean what you think they mean" as a way to dismiss the abysmal numbers. So which is it.

Let's face it, we all know it, just some of us are too scared to say it publicly. In large urban areas in America, there is a (large / huge / significant) portion of the school population that is illiterate, speaks non-functional english in the form of black-culture slang, the rest don't even speak english in an english-speaking country, and practically none of them are going to be functional adults that don't require assistance and handouts to survive.

>madrassas in Pakistan that just teach the kids to read the Quran

I thought they were just teaching the sounds of the Quran. Like the Pakistani kids don't know any Arabic, and they don't learn to read or understand Arabic. They just memorize and recite the Arabic sounds of the Quran that they've been taught.

They usually do teach you to read Arabic, which is mostly the same script as Urdu. But you don't understand what you're reading which doesn't really make it any better.

Do they at least give a translation of the verses?

I can believe that they don't actually teach the grammar of Arabic or how to speak or write it, but they don't even translate the meaning of the verses to Urdu (or whatever the local language is)?

I'm not an expert in this area at all. But I was under the impression that for some of these schools, that is the case. My understanding is that some (many?/most?) Muslims believe that the Quran was a direct revelation from Allah in Arabic, and so translations are somewhat suspect, risking incorrect interpretations from humans.

I know that Muslims believe that translations of the Quran are of a lesser status, but I didn’t think that would extend to not even explaining their meaning to the students.

I tend to see big per student spending in public schools as suggestive that they've been loaded up with a disproportionate share of the kids with IEPs.

Why would it give people worse education? Besides who are you or any of us to decide what is and isnt a good education for someone elses kids? It's not your job to police ideas.

Are you really arguing schools getting taxpayer money to teach kids humans walked with dinosaurs and all modern biology is a lie a good educational outcome?

Do you really not see how that's a bad outcome?

Do you not see that removing the funding from the regular public schools to go to teach that nonsense will lead to worse outcomes for those kids who can't leave those regular public schools?

Sure, maybe some students will potentially have some better outcomes if they manage to go to a good private charter school with their voucher that happens to be a decent one. For everyone else it's a worse outcome, unless you think it's a good thing to teach every animal alive today are direct descendants of the ark that was just a few thousand years ago.

Also, kiss special education funding goodbye. It won't be profitable to handle these students. They'll be trapped in those even more underfunded public schools. Hooray, great outcomes!

But those kids who are "being left behind" are good to have vouchers too. You don't think there will be small schools who want to take them?

I had a bunch of random teachers teach really dumb stuff while I was in public school. I don't believe those things, because I had parents who were involved in my education. It's never a good idea to leave your kids education to the whims of someone else.

Public school doesn't have some magic monopoly on good ideas. And private/voucher schools aren't going to have a monopoly on bad ones.

Why would the kids not be able to leave public schools? They will all have vouchers?

> You don't think there will be small schools who want to take them?

Spending a second of logic on it and thinking critically, there won't. Why would a school empowered to be choosy and subject to profit motivations choose the pricier students to specialize that reduce their rankings?

And why do you think a flood of schools arguing germ theory is a lie be a public good?

I went to religious private school and too had teachers who taught some bullshit things. Dinosaurs were fakes buried in the soil by the devil to test believers. Evolution is a lie by the government. And yet by personal experience I'm more learned than the average public school peer I know. I'm a somewhat special person though; I know many in my class that still believe without question. It's not a good thing for society overall to have such "knowledge".

As for why kids wouldn't be able to leave the public schools, some schools will be required to provide transportation. Others won't. Some will be able to be choosy, some won't. You see where this goes? Those schools which are choosey and don't provide transportation will end up selecting the most well off while those unable to be choosy and/or forced to provide transportation will be forced to shoulder those who aren't good performers who don't get into the choosy schools with a transit scholarship.

> I went to religious private school and too had teachers who taught some bullshit things... And yet by personal experience I'm more learned than the average public school peer I know.

Should that not give you pause about the general quality of the schools you're defending? Do you not see where parents might see you in fundie school learning about how man rode the dinosaurs alongside a public school kid that somehow knows even less than you about history or biology, and think "hmm maybe I'd like to find something else"?

> Should that not give you pause about the general quality of the schools you're defending?

No, because I've seen the average of the extremist schools which will grow with the voucher program and they're far worse than the negatives I experienced. Education like Eve gives Adam two apples, how many apples does Adam have; it doesn't matter Jesus will come soon here's another chapter of the KJV.

Except there's no reason to believe extremist schools should grow significantly. Most people aren't extremists (pretty much by definition). In fact, good schools are a usual top tier concern when looking at housing. Your worry about fly-by-night schools extracting profits and fleeing is also not particularly hard to solve: hold them liable for damages/a return of n years of voucher funds if the school fails to meet standards and require them to carry insurance or post a bond to prove they can meet their liability. High performing schools or new schools associated to people/organizations with a previous success record will have cheap premiums. Dodgy schools will have expensive premiums or will be uninsurable. Your worry about special ed is also not that complex: give higher funds for those kids to offset their higher cost.

Ok, so… you went to some self-described example a school you are complaining about, turned out great, and are upset that kids might not keep going to known-failing schools?

Maybe… there is more to school than facts? Maybe it’s about order and discipline and shared values too?

> Maybe… there is more to school than facts? Maybe it’s about order and discipline and shared values too?

Maybe status-quo bias is so powerful that people will see an institution that fails at literally everything it tries to do and instead of concluding that it's a failing institution they will pick some other random thing and decide the institution must actually be about that, because the idea that the institution is actually pointless is too horrible to contemplate.

> Are you really arguing schools getting taxpayer money to teach kids humans walked with dinosaurs and all modern biology is a lie a good educational outcome?

I'll say yes. Most people I've seen who have gone through that type of schooling are good members of society. They work jobs, they pay taxes, they have friends, they often go on to higher education, they raise families, and they may be happier than the average person. The outcome is perfectly fine.

I went to a young earth creationist Christian school and it messed me up. Most of us had a hard time adjusting to life outside the Evangelical Christian bubble. It's really hard to connect to others when your identity is tied up in believing a lot of outlandish things and it's hard to love yourself because you're given a long list of crazy rules to follow. I was told that kissing someone before I was married would taint my soul and whoever I married would be disgusted by me if I did so. Most people I've kept in touch with regret going to that school and every queer person I know has been absolutely traumatized by the experience. I'm happy, and by your criteria, a good member of society but that was despite my school. It took a lot of therapy, personal growth, and finding a community of people who actually care about me to be happy.

You are ignoring the externalities. We end up with an ignorant society that ultimately harms all of us. I hate to use a movie trope here, but we're barely a step above Idiocracy when it comes to the ability of the average American to function and make decisions. This ultimately becomes self destructive.

87% of kids attend public k-12, and secular and Catholic schools together make up the majority of private, so if we're barely a step above Idiocracy, it seems a bit silly to point at the "man rode the dinosaurs" people.

I don’t think supporters of the existing American public school are in any position to lecture anyone about “outcomes.”

They better not teach that. We all know dinosaurs aren't real!

I joke but religious education isn't all bad. One of my smartest friends in High School went to Santa Clara University and really liked it.

Many Catholic high schools are also among the highest performing in the country.

The claims around religious education are one of the biggest remaining examples of socially acceptable bigotry.

Catholics aren't generally young-Earth creationists, and overall the Church argues the age of the earth is a scientific not a religious question.

I totally agree there are many religious schools which are extremely high quality. Despite a few strange views at the school I went to, the general quality of education was quite high. However, I refuse to ignore the many other examples of schools which are not high quality. They should be called out, and there's no way I want my tax dollars going to teach their nonsense.

The thing is - the average school is terrible. NAEP scores show less than 25% reach "basic" proficiency in math, and reading is even worse.

I can't find any comparable stats on just religious schools, but I strongly suspect they are, on average, performing substantially better than non-religious schools. The reasons for that are more to do with the students than the schools, but the exact reason is inconsequential - the point is that people are targeting them because of the religious aspect and not the quality of education.

The typical claim of evolution is illogical. Even if a religious school solely and exclusively taught creationism while not even paying lip service to the controversy (which few to none do), it's not at all like a child's education would be permanently crippled. As the most important things learned in basic education are not facts, but skills - reading, writing, and arithmetic in particular.

A school which can be choosy in admissions will likely have students with better proficiencies. It's easy to have only top scoring students when you can kick out the bottom scoring ones.

> the point is that people are targeting them because of the religious aspect and not the quality of education

This is the point I'm making. Many people aren't going to end up choosing the school because of the quality of the education, they'll be choosing it because it aligns with their world view. That germ theory is a lie, the Earth is 5,000 years old, scientists are liars out to eliminate Christ from society, and that the only things you need to know is what is in the Bible.

Let's assume what you're saying is true, though I'm sure you realize you're being rather hyperbolic, at a minimum.

I think the purpose of school is to teach the fundamentals - reading, writing and arithmetic in particular.

I don't really care what worldview a school endorses so long as they are completely transparent on it.

Young Earth theory and creationism is one side of a coin - 80 genders, intersectionalism, and critical theory is the other.

If a parent is down with these worldviews, I see no problem so long as the school is excelling at their primary educational responsibilities, and also making their ideological motives transparent to parents.

Or private equity owned schools. Imagine how bad product they could effectively deliver. The would not even teach humans walking with dinosaurs... As they would do bare minimum of teaching anything at all...

Why would parents send their children to those schools? Never mind who owns them; I would expect the kind of hypothetical schools you’re describing to go bankrupt quickly. Private equity is not in the business of losing money in predictable ways.

Same reason parents send their kids to public schools: because the price is right. Since we're importing legions of indentured servants, wages aren't rising, and parents have to make tough decisions in order to pay for basic necessities.

A thriving education system is an indicator of a prosperous society, not a cause.

> As they would do bare minimum of teaching anything at all...

As compared to what again? Remind me how good government has been doing.

Schools are a state and local matter. So just because you might be frustrated with the government in your area ain't my effing problem. To chastise all public schools is a false narrative.

For one, you mean local government.

Two, then you wouldn’t be opposed to eliminating the dept of education then, right? I hope Trump follows through on his promise you seem to agree with.

Come on, be serious. In a huge country with 50M students attending primary/secondary school you can always dredge up a few horror stories but those are far from the typical case. On the scale of ways that schools damage kids, teaching them the unscientific mythology of certain Christian sects is hardly the worst. The Catholic church, which is one of the largest private school operators, has no official position on paleontology or evolution through natural selection.

I am serious. If you're thinking most of the families are chomping at the bit to repurpose tax dollars to Catholic schools you've clearly never interviewed the average homeschool family South of the Mason-Dixon. They don't even think Catholics are Christian; many would align a priest with Satan!

Most families I know who currently home school do so so to avoid vaccine requirements because germ theory/biology is a lie or because they're worried their kids will be exposed to the idea of the fossil record or that gay people exist in the world or put thoughts like dinosaurs died before humans into kids heads.

You're delusional if you think of these aren't major homeschooling points in the US. Willingly holding your nose to ignore the extreme stench of the anti-intellectualism the rest of the movement massively embodies.

This will be the outcome in an extreme majority of school districts. If anything, this recent election shows fundies vote. To them it's even more than life or death, it's eternal death to miss voting.

This would all be a solid argument if home schooled kids didn’t significantly outperform public school kids.

https://nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/

This isn't pure statistics though. This dataset is massively biased. And out performed on what, that 2+2=4 or that 2+2=Who know what except that God gives us our provision despite what our eyes see and logic tells us

Standardized testing

That’s a meaningless statistic. What matters is how each group respectively would do in the other format versus what they do in their present format.

> The Catholic church ... has no official position on paleontology or evolution through natural selection.

That's certainly an indictment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com