The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools • Hacker News Board

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#111

Post by dalke » Fri, Oct 30, 2015, 10:05 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #110

ThomPete wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charter schools like Success Academy function by lottery so no cherry picking at all. And keep in mind it was started in Harlem not exactly the best base for the kids with the best resources. The reason why charter schools like Success Academy are popular is because it's strong focus and philosophy.

> The reason why charter schools like Success Academy are popular is because it's strong focus and philosophy. Which from today's NYT at http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/nyregion/at-a-success-a... apparently includes pushing out any students. That is, says Brown, principal at Success Academy Fort Greene: "Some of them needed an alternative setting with highly specialized services". You know where those (expensive…

FFS! Did Success Academy really release the records of a 10 year old student, in all likelihood in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, just because that student and his mother were the only ones willing to voice their complaints about the on camera?

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#112

Post by nmrm2 » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 4:05 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #83

nmrm2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never said that charter schools was performing better I was saying that my SONS school was performing better despite being a lottery. Your comment started with "Again this is simply wrong", without specifying "this". I assume you were refering to: "[charters are] selecting or quasi-selecting their student population". So, my interpretation of your claim: "Charter schools that use lotteries out-perform, which mean…

You whole argument is based on a completely absurd premise. That you are right because you can claim that parents who are interested in their childs educations and apply to charter schools is the selection bias. But this is not what this discussion is about. The claim being made was that charter school had an advantage because they got to pick the best kids and leave the rest for the public school system. It doesn't…

Regarding this aside about bias (which, truly, is merely an aside and by far not the most important point of ANY of the posts I've made in this thread):

1. Just because X (here, income distribution) creates a bias that we have to correct for doesn't mean that the bias created by Y (here, self-selection for lottery participation) isn't also problematic form a statistical perspective.

2. There are a lot of reasons to believe that, in the case where we compare charters to publics, that the volunteer selection bias is more problematic than the income distribution bias in public schools. Namely, we pretty much already know how to statistically control for the latter, but it's a lot more difficult to statistically control for the former.

So, you're wrong. Period. Voluntary selection bias exists. This is just a scientific fact. You have to correct for it in statistical studies. Period. End of story. Do other biases exist? Yes. Are they more important? No, because that's a stupid question. Any sort of selection bias is a threat to validity, and the entire point of a bias is that it's hard to know exactly the effect it's having until you correct for that.

But, and I stress this because you seem to be ignoring it, the important portion of all of my posts has NOTHING to do with selection bias!

In many states we don't even have a meaningful statistic upon which to make a comparison between chaters and non-charters because charters aren't taking the same standardized tests. So even after perfectly correcting for bias, we still have zero hope of actually comparing charters to publics.

Fundamental take-away: any school taking taxpayer money should be required to take the same standardized tests as public schools. Otherwise, any and all comparisons between them are bunk.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#113

Post by nmrm2 » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 4:20 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #79

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>those who can afford to move into the area where their kids get zoned to the good schools And who care enough to move (showing a massive parental interest in their child's education). This is why using test scores to compare schools, be it charter vs. public in the same district or public vs. public in another district, is inherently flawed.

The difference is that you can have an interest in your childs education and have a chance to get in on a charter. With zoned schools you can have an interest in your childs education and have no way of getting in simply because you can't afford it. The point is that those who claim that charter schools get to pick the good students and leave the bad ones with the public schools are simply wrong. It's the public scho…

> those who claim that charter schools get to pick the good students and leave the bad ones with the public schools are simply wrong

no, they aren't. Sorry, this isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Every study ever performed on this question indicates that you are the one who is wrong.

> It's the public schools in the rich areas that get to pick their students simply by whether they can afford to live where they do or not.

The existence of selection bias X doesn't preclude the existence of another selection bias Y... why would you think that's the case?

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#114

Post by mratzloff » Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 6:30 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #90

mratzloff wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct, but that's not what I did.

Of course it is. Otherwise your point is trivial. Some schools don't live up to their obligation. No shit.

I'm not sure what your comment added to the discussion. Between this thread and your overall comment history, you strike me as a very argumentative person.

When it is a nationwide difference it is not just "some" schools; it is systemic. That doesn't make charter schools the bad guys. That doesn't make public schools the good guys. It does, however, mean that this is a complex issue and charter schools are competing on unequal footing in at least one respect.