Turns out, maybe not.

Private schools score higher on tests, but they also have kids from higher income families, less children from divorced families, and tend to draw their students from different physical locations. When those factors are controlled for, well... something interesting pops out.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008101.php

PUBLIC vs. PRIVATE....Do private schools do a better job of educating our kids than public schools? Lots of people think so. But a new, large-scale statistical analysis of the 2003 NAEP test results suggests that when you control for things like income, race, home environment, and so forth, the performance of private schools actually turns out to be worse or about the same as that of public schools, not better.

The study analyzed only the math portion of the NAEP test, and the results from the 4th grade test are shown below. The red line shows the average public school score, and as you can see from the black bars on the graph, the raw scores for most types of private schools are higher than the public school average. However, much of this difference is due to the fact that private schools attract better kids in the first place, not because the schools themselves are better.

So what would happen if both types of schools had similar student bodies? Those results are shown for private schools in the gray bars in the graph, where test scores are controlled for demographics, and they're considerably lower than the public school average. In other words, if you took two similar kids and sent one to a public school and one to a private school, the kid in the private school would probably do a little worse than his public school twin. (Note that a difference of 10 points is roughly equal to one grade level.)

The 8th grade results are better, with most private schools scoring about the same as public schools. The only exception is the conservative Christian schools, which continue to score considerably lower than public schools — although the sample size is small enough that the results aren't conclusive.

Note, that small sample size is refering to the subsample of ONLY conservative christian schools, not the sample size of the whole study. Graph at the link, along with a link to the actual study results.

So why are private schools worse than public schools? Where is the free market magic?

Turns out, maybe not.

Private schools score higher on tests, but they also have kids from higher income families, less children from divorced families, and tend to draw their students from different physical locations. When those factors are controlled for, well... something interesting pops out.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008101.php

PUBLIC vs. PRIVATE....Do private schools do a better job of educating our kids than public schools? Lots of people think so. But a new, large-scale statistical analysis of the 2003 NAEP test results suggests that when you control for things like income, race, home environment, and so forth, the performance of private schools actually turns out to be worse or about the same as that of public schools, not better.

The study analyzed only the math portion of the NAEP test, and the results from the 4th grade test are shown below. The red line shows the average public school score, and as you can see from the black bars on the graph, the raw scores for most types of private schools are higher than the public school average. However, much of this difference is due to the fact that private schools attract better kids in the first place, not because the schools themselves are better.

So what would happen if both types of schools had similar student bodies? Those results are shown for private schools in the gray bars in the graph, where test scores are controlled for demographics, and they're considerably lower than the public school average. In other words, if you took two similar kids and sent one to a public school and one to a private school, the kid in the private school would probably do a little worse than his public school twin. (Note that a difference of 10 points is roughly equal to one grade level.)

The 8th grade results are better, with most private schools scoring about the same as public schools. The only exception is the conservative Christian schools, which continue to score considerably lower than public schools — although the sample size is small enough that the results aren't conclusive.

Note, that small sample size is refering to the subsample of ONLY conservative christian schools, not the sample size of the whole study. Graph at the link, along with a link to the actual study results.

So why are private schools worse than public schools? Where is the free market magic?


the idea for higher grades are just one part of the reason parents send their children to private schools. as big a draw is the ability to exert more control over what goes into their skulls full of mush and pop out a better overall human being at the end of the line. better grades dont necessarily mean a better person.

Turns out, maybe not.

Private schools score higher on tests, but they also have kids from higher income families, less children from divorced families, and tend to draw their students from different physical locations. When those factors are controlled for, well... something interesting pops out.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008101.php

PUBLIC vs. PRIVATE....Do private schools do a better job of educating our kids than public schools? Lots of people think so. But a new, large-scale statistical analysis of the 2003 NAEP test results suggests that when you control for things like income, race, home environment, and so forth, the performance of private schools actually turns out to be worse or about the same as that of public schools, not better.

The study analyzed only the math portion of the NAEP test, and the results from the 4th grade test are shown below. The red line shows the average public school score, and as you can see from the black bars on the graph, the raw scores for most types of private schools are higher than the public school average. However, much of this difference is due to the fact that private schools attract better kids in the first place, not because the schools themselves are better.

So what would happen if both types of schools had similar student bodies? Those results are shown for private schools in the gray bars in the graph, where test scores are controlled for demographics, and they're considerably lower than the public school average. In other words, if you took two similar kids and sent one to a public school and one to a private school, the kid in the private school would probably do a little worse than his public school twin. (Note that a difference of 10 points is roughly equal to one grade level.)

The 8th grade results are better, with most private schools scoring about the same as public schools. The only exception is the conservative Christian schools, which continue to score considerably lower than public schools — although the sample size is small enough that the results aren't conclusive.

Note, that small sample size is refering to the subsample of ONLY conservative christian schools, not the sample size of the whole study. Graph at the link, along with a link to the actual study results.

So why are private schools worse than public schools? Where is the free market magic?That doesn't surprise me in the least. We've had anecdotal evidence of this for as long as I can remember.

I see private schools as an option for good parents with good kids who are stuck in bad (not average/high crime/etc) public school systems.

I have to agree with Bill. I don't have kids, but I was once one myself and did attend both public and very uppity private schools. I think parents have other motivations besides grades and testing for sending their kids to a private school vs. a public school. Keeping their kids away from elements of crime and danger certainly play into it. Believing that their child is being given skills and taught information that will help them get into better colleges is also motivation. I didn't look at the data, but is there a stat for how kids from both types of institution place in colleges? I would be willing to bet that kids coming out of private schools would get more consideration and place more readily in schools of their choice. Smaller class sizes and greater attention from the teacher is another reason.

From my own experiences, I have to say I liked both. I attended a public school where I had 40 kids in my homeroom alone (probably at least 2500 overall) and graduated from HS where the graduating class had 25 students.

I know you love statistics, but maybe the real difference is in the quality of the education, not in the test results. Private schools may have smaller classes, better libraries and computers, better lab equipment, better athletic facilities, and more secure environments for learning. Sure, maybe the test results match public schools, but those tests are fairly simplistic, and rarely test the things that really matter, which are critical thinking and problem solving.

I have to agree with Bill. I don't have kids, but I was once one myself and did attend both public and very uppity private schools. I think parents have other motivations besides grades and testing for sending their kids to a private school vs. a public school. Keeping their kids away from elements of crime and danger certainly play into it. Believing that their child is being given skills and taught information that will help them get into better colleges is also motivation. I didn't look at the data, but is there a stat for how kids from both types of institution place in colleges? I would be willing to bet that kids coming out of private schools would get more consideration and place more readily in schools of their choice. Smaller class sizes and greater attention from the teacher is another reason.

From my own experiences, I have to say I liked both. I attended a public school where I had 40 kids in my homeroom alone (probably at least 2500 overall) and graduated from HS where the graduating class had 25 students. Sheltering kids is never a good idea. Every kid that I know that has been sheltered, is either:

A. Just released out of rehab for coke.

B. A total $lut

C. Failing out of college because they party too much.

D. A alcoholic

E. A combination of the above

F. All of the above

Shelter your kids all you want, but realise this, eventually they will have to live in the real world, and you can either let them out in it all at once, or let them out in it abit at a time. Your choice. I've seen the consequences of both, and I know what I would choose.

Sheltering kids is never a good idea. Every kid that I know that has been sheltered, is either:

A. Just released out of rehab for coke.

B. A total $lut

C. Failing out of college because they party too much.

D. A alcoholic

E. A combination of the above

F. All of the above

so

private schools = sheltering?

There are a lot of factors that determine whether a public or a private school does better job. First and foremost, like real estate is location, location, location. Where I grew up the public schools were a joke; I went to a typical 1960s Catholic parish elementary school (nuns in black habits, etc.) and an elite, all boys Catholic high school. My biggest surprise when I arrived at college was that the kids who seemed to have had the best high school educations were not those from elite private schools, but those from very rich suburban public schools. Nothing I have seen over the nearly-thirty years since then has changed my view: the best education that you can get in the US is in a rich, suburban school district. But, not everyone can live in such a place.

I currently live on the wrong side of a school district line. My daughters have attended private schools since pre-school. Based on the experiences of friends who live a mile or two from us on the right side of the line, I think that their local public elementary school was largely superior to the private elementary school that my daughters attended. Now that we are in the high school phase of our daughters' education, there is no question in my mind that no local public school is as good as the local private ones.

Even within a particular school, one or two teachers can make a big difference. I honestly believe that my academic success directly results from the teacher that I had in third and fourth grade (she moved from third to fourth grade with my class). One of my daughters, at her elite private elementary school, had two teachers that were horrible(neither of them lasted more than two years at the school, but they did a fair amount of damage while they were there). Her elementary school years would have been a complete disaster but for her fifth grade teacher, who was excellent. WhenI hear stories about children who rise above horrible circumstances in otherwise dismal public schools, I often wonder how many of them had the one special teacher -- one that is a rare in private schools as he/she is public schools.

Sure, maybe the test results match public schools, but those tests are fairly simplistic, and rarely test the things that really matter, which are critical thinking and problem solving.

I am with you on testing simple things. But why don't private schools do better on the simple measures? You know, the basics?

That was going to be my question. As a libby FTF should be condoning the actions he/she cites. Instead I believe FTF is pre-judging these actions and labeling them bad. What ever happened to the free thinking, free swinging libby? ****? Druggie? Alcoholic? We know what pre-judging really means no don't we.

I think most of the motivation for private school is to control the peer group to some extent. As the study points out, private schools are more homogenous, but then again, who wouldn't want their children in close association with other children in relatively more stable families?

The flip side is rarely considered, I believe, which is to say that private education saves the public school a tremendous amount of money.

I think most of the motivation for private school is to control the peer group to some extent. As the study points out, private schools are more homogenous, but then again, who wouldn't want their children in close association with other children in relatively more stable families?

The flip side is rarely considered, I believe, which is to say that private education saves the public school a tremendous amount of money.

The private schools that you are writing about are not like the ones I know. The schools where my kids go may have a generally economically homogenous student body (there are some scholarship kids there, too). But I hardly would say that my daughters' peers come from "relatively more stable families." There are so many kids in private schools from f*cked up families. Maybe the stories are different from those in a poor public school. For example, I don't know of any children of unwed teenage mothers in my daughters' classes. But, I could tell you many stories -- like the girl whose teenage brothers got into a knife fight at home while the parents were off on vacation in Asia and a non-English speaking servant was the only adult in the house, or the girl whose "wildly successful businessman father" actually was a high-end drug dealer who was carted off to federal prison a few years ago, or the girl whose father dumped her mother for a girlfriend who looks like she is barely above the ago of majority . . . .

I think it's all about parents and expectations. We've got public schools in NYC that are some of the finest in the country. There's a tradition of excellence built up and beaucoup tax base. Conversely we have the most abysmal schools as well due the most popular dynamic of the city namely immigrant servant classes and the entrenched urban poor.

I think schools more or less reflect the community it serves as opposed to transforming them. But that seems rather trite, doesn't it.

I think it's all about parents and expectations. We've got public schools in NYC that are some of the finest in the country. There's a tradition of excellence built up and beaucoup tax base. Conversely we have the most abysmal schools as well due the most popular dynamic of the city namely immigrant servant classes and the entrenched urban poor.

I think schools more or less reflect the community it serves as opposed to transforming them. But that seems rather trite, doesn't it.


I agree with you Sintesi, it is all about the parents. If you have motivated parents that value education and their childrens future you generally end up with kids that also value learning and are motivated to succeed. It also helps if the district has the resources to give the students all possible oppurtunities. Take a look at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. One of the top ranked high schools in the country with motivated parents and students and sky high per capita household income and a huge tax base to support that motivation. You have to keep in mind the general differance between public and private schools when it comes to test scores. The public schools have to take everybody no matter how uninterested they are in education where as the private schools can weed out the under performers.

Anecdotes aside, I was referring to the findings of the study which said that the divorce rate was lower among families who used private school. While there may be exceptions, my intuition (and confirmed by things I've read) says that students at private school have parents with a vested financial interest in their children's education. While the PTA meetings in the public schools are scarcely attended, in private schools they are filled. The general environment is one where learning (or at least looking like doing it) is valued. This makes for an attractive peer group.

so

private schools = sheltering?
as big a draw is the ability to exert more control over what goes into their skulls full of mush and pop out a better overall human being at the end of the line.
Yes..

That was going to be my question. As a libby FTF should be condoning the actions he/she cites. Instead I believe FTF is pre-judging these actions and labeling them bad. What ever happened to the free thinking, free swinging libby? ****? Druggie? Alcoholic? We know what pre-judging really means no don't we. Excuse me? What world do you live in? I haven't pre-judged these actions, I have seen what a coke addiction does to someone, have you?

As for being a ****, well, various std's are usually a result.

I dono, but negitive lifetime results, seem like a bad thing to me, I'm not PRE-judging these actions, I'm post-judging them, as I have seen the fallout of each of these situations.

Also as a damned commie libby *******, I believe that we all should be educated to the highest level, so dropping out of college, really isn't a good thing. Sadly, I feel that perhaps you didn't take full advantage of the higher education system we have, no matter how poor it is.

But the results are not definitive, according to the authors of the study. From page 18 of the study: "Overall, due to the complexities of the issues involved, no single study can provide a definitive determination of the effectiveness of various forms of schooling. We view this study as providing up-to-date, nationally representative evidence that can inform current debates about the relationship between school sector and achievement."

Your leap to a conclusion about public schools being better than private schools is large, indeed. The study, if you had bothered to read it, would tell you about the limitations the researchers faced and their problems in reaching any definitive conclusion. Its a good starting point, though, and creates for interesting discussion.

Here's another conclusion we could draw from the data. From page 27: "The percentage of minority students was highest in charter schools and lowest in private schools." Maybe we should glean from this that. given that private schools aren't as good as public schools, minority students are just plain smarter than non-minority students.

The whole study is full of assumptions and suppositions. Its nice conversation material, but as to making a final judgment on the worthiness of voucher programs and the success of private schools, it falls far short of its target.

I'm all for public schools, but I do frown upon the common liberal rebuking of private schools. I get the impression that liberals just can't stand the fact that they can't control the content of private school curriculum like they can and do public schools, to a large extent, and that, God help them, private schools might mention "God" in the classroom or maybe even teach creationism, both not tolerated by the comrades.

I doubt parents sending their kids to private schools do so primarily because of test results. It probably has a lot more to do with the local public school alternative and core value issues.

I'm all for public schools, but I do frown upon the common liberal rebuking of private schools. I get the impression that liberals just can't stand the fact that they can't control the content of private school curriculum like they can and do public schools, to a large extent, and that, God help them, private schools might mention "God" in the classroom or maybe even teach creationism, both not tolerated by the comrades.

I doubt parents sending their kids to private schools do so primarily because of test results. It probably has a lot more to do with the local public school alternative and core value issues.
As I am unfamilliar with these liberal rebukes of private school curriculum...could you post some of these...because as I fancy myself a politically astute liberal working in the eductional field...this is indeed news to me.

I know you love statistics, but maybe the real difference is in the quality of the education, not in the test results. Private schools may have smaller classes, better libraries and computers, better lab equipment, better athletic facilities, and more secure environments for learning. Sure, maybe the test results match public schools, but those tests are fairly simplistic, and rarely test the things that really matter, which are critical thinking and problem solving.

Smaller class sizes, yes. Better libraries, computers, lab equipment, athletic facilities are probably not true. Some private schools may have more and better but I think the average private school doesn't have the resources to have better facilities. That's the way it is where I live and other places I'm familiar with.

If my tax dollars are going to support students in private schools (i.e. vouchers) I want some say over how those dollars are spent. I have no problem with private schools teaching religion or subjects not appropriate in public schools. I do, however, have a problem with different and often much lower teacher standards and the fact that private schools don't have to comply with all the review and testing that public schools do. If no tax dollars are involved I say do what you want (as long as it's legal).

As I am unfamilliar with these liberal rebukes of private school curriculum...could you post some of these...because as I fancy myself a politically astute liberal working in the eductional field...this is indeed news to me.


There may be some "christian academies" or other such places where liberal values are rebuked, but I can tell you that the Catholic high school that I attended 30+ years ago was much more liberal when it came to political/social issues than the local public schools were (the facts that we had to wear jacket and ties to class and have shorter hair than the norm were just a smokescreen to make our parents believe that we were in a conservative place). The non-sectarian private schools my daughters attend today are about as PC as any liberal college campus. For example, at my younger daughter's school, they are even beyond calling the Christmas pageant "Holiday" -- this year it was the "December" assembly. Not only were there Hanukkah and Kwanza songs, there was mention of the pagan winter solstice. At my older daughter's school, teachers constantly are talking about gay/lesbian rights, the folly of the Iraq war, etc.

The public school spends all of its efforts in trying to teach to the test, whereas the private school teaches for a well rounded education. They say forget the test since they aren't subject to it's performance to get funding.

Just my opinion having seen both in evaluating my own kids education. 4th and 6th grade right now.

FTF said something about sheltering. I'd say there are some issues there.

Some kids and some parents need to be sheltered. Some crazy parents could not survive in public school. The Christian who can't be cool with others and the Liberal how doesn't know how to play with others are good and real examples I see all the time.

But I'd say that don't expect your kids to be "safer" in a private school. Those kids are spoiled like crap and have less parental supervision, more access to bad things and the schools are more tolerant of bad behavior so as to not lose the $10K a year. I've seen that a lot too.

My kids are in public and tough. They can play well with others, but know in their head the pitfalls of what's out there. They are smart, athletic and cool, so it's a fine place. But in our super liberal school there are kids that couldn't be in regular public school (lawsuits left and right, and we've got tons of those rejects in our school) and I know tons of people in my church how couldn't handle public either.

Thank goodness for freedom of choice, but again school testing really isn't a good measure of the teaching at a school Heck you neglect the good middle class kids and raise the bottom (illegal immigrant kids :) and you'll raise your testing a lot.

well if they were tested here in San Diego against the Public Schools in the 'nice neighborhoods' I bet they'd probably fare worse on scores. Kids in private schools tend to have more social advantages that the average middle to low income PS student. So any score differences would most likely be alotted to such.

well if they were tested here in San Diego against the Public Schools in the 'nice neighborhoods' I bet they'd probably fare worse on scores. Kids in private schools tend to have more social advantages that the average middle to low income PS student. So any score differences would most likely be alotted to such.

That is exactly the point of the study. They controlled for such KNOWN factors with statistics. How is not important, but suffice it to say that they did control for things like parental income, single parent/2 parent family, etc. So in essence they compare rich kids in public and private school, poor kids in public and private, black/white in public and private.... they subtract out the effects of everything BUT public/private factors and see what differences exist.

Feel free to read the original study if you want. It's only 48 pages with appendices.

http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP111.pdf

I assume you understand 2-level hierarchical linear modeling, right?

;)

I went to public schools and was exposed to sex / alcohol / drugs between 6th & 7th grades. I was lucky to have friends 2 different tyypes of friends, those preparing themselves for the future and those partying in the present. I had a lot of fun with the present but glad I followed the path of those preparing themselves for the future. My kids go to parochial school and are exposed to other kids that:
Their families are focused on education (not necessarily a better education)
Have to wear uniforms and behave themselves
Have to perform community service to give back and appreciate what they have. (Most kids don't, including me as a kid)
Adhere to a moral code of conduct or face the consequences.

We send these kids to private school to try and buy them some time to build their character to help them combat the enormous pressures they will face in life to take the easy rode. "Show me your friends and I'll show you, yourself"

I also think the personality of the child dictates whether they will need some help.

That's been a controversial issue here for 15 years, and when you look at all the facts, public schools do pretty well. Main reason for test-score differences seems to be that they have to take all comers, while private schools can accept or reject.
One public school class I visited last year had students speaking seven different languages, and none of the kids was even halfway fluent in English. The teacher spoke Spanish, but that didn't help the kids who spoke Korean, Farsi or Vietnamese.
There's a question of educational background, too. I tutored an ESL class for high school age Hispanic speakers a few years ago (I can sort of stumble along in present-tense Spanish), and at one point I got snippy with a couple of girls who weren't taking notes. Turned out they were illiterate even in their native tongue. Neither could do much more than write her name. But their scores get tossed into the average along with all the others.