I LAUGH, THAT I AM NOT THIS MAN

My "run and hide from the big scary world" tantrum of yesterday having subsided, I take it upon myself to return to blogging. But the world still sucks - indeed, it sucks even more - so I've decided to stick with something fun and easy.

And what's easier than tearing apart a John Tierney column? From behind the Times Select wall, I give you yesterday's "Spinning a Bad Report Card.">

Thanks to a new federal report comparing public and private schools, there’s no doubt that public schools have one huge advantage: the leaders of their unions are unrivaled masters of spin.

They didn’t merely celebrate the report’s release on Friday, they complained that the Bush administration tried to bury it by releasing it for the weekend. They spun so well that the report was treated as a public-school triumph that “casts doubt on the value of voucher programs,” as The Wall Street Journal described it.

So did Tierney's own New York Times, but we'll not hold that against him. And it's not just that they "complained" the administration tried to bury it: "Its release, on a summer Friday, was made with without a news conference or comment from Education Secretary Margaret Spellings."

But if anything, the report from the Education Department did just the opposite. It concluded, after compensating for socioeconomic differences and other factors, that public-school students score slightly better on tests in fourth grade, while private-school students score slightly better in eighth grade. Given a choice, would you rather be ahead in the fourth inning or later in the game?

Mind if I return to that Times article? Or hell, how about I just cite the report (PDF):

"When student-level covariates are included in the model, the difference in adjusted averages [of grade 8 math scores] between private and public schools is not significantly different from zero. The same pattern holds for the separate comparisons of all public schools to Catholic schools...When the average difference in school means is adjusted for student characteristics, the average school mean is higher for public schools than for Conservative Christian schools."

Got that? Private schools are a smidgen better on 8th grade reading, public schools are as good or a smidgen better on math (Lutheran schools are better than public schools in math). So the choice is being ahead in the fourth inning, or not knowing how to read the scoreboard later in the game.

But even if you ignore that trend, even if you focus on the overall similarity of the scores in both types of school, that’s still bad news for public schools. Their students ought to be scoring higher if you believe in the unions’ favorite prescription for improving education: more money.

Most private schools are not places like Exeter or Dalton. They’re Catholic parochial schools and others on lean budgets. According to federal surveys, the typical private school’s tuition is only about half what a public school spends per pupil.

So, one side's income is less than the other's expenses? I can't confirm that, because no sane person would compile that data. But I can still have fun with numbers!
-Average expense per student, US private schools, 2003-04: $18,905 (from the National Association of Independent Schools).
-Average expense per student, US public schools, 2003-04: $8,208 (from the National Eduacation Association, via the American School Board Journal).

The public schools are spending more even if you exclude their expenses for special education, buses, lunch programs and central administration, as William Howell and Paul Peterson found in a study of New York elementary schools. The political scientists calculated that the public schools were still spending twice as much per pupil as were the Catholic schools in New York.

New York's public school also outperform the nation as a whole.

General Motors would not celebrate the news that its $40,000 Cadillac performed almost as well as a $20,000 Honda. It would not have its dealers put up signs reading: “Why Pay Less? Our Cars Are Nearly As Good.” But that’s the logic of the teachers’ union leaders who want to prevent students from getting vouchers and taxpayers from saving money.

For fans of public schools, about the only bright spot in this new study is that it’s not as damning as previous comparisons, but that’s because it’s a much less rigorous study. Its authors caution that it’s of “modest utility,” and other scholars think that’s too kind. Some critics fault its methodology and say it understates the advantages of private schools, and some don’t think this kind of comparison can prove anything.

I don't know, it seems to me like fans of public schools are finding plenty to be happy about. But I'm feeling much better about blogging, and this is starting to get boring, so I'll turn the rest (a loving description of a rather draconian social experiment) over to The Dialectizer:

Zee best vey tu cumpere-a schuuls is nut tu seemply luuk et test scures oone-a yeer, becoose-a it’s impusseeble-a tu eccuoont fur zee stoodents’ intreensic edfunteges und deesedfunteges, und zeeur feryeeng muteefeshuns fur chuuseeng oone-a type-a ooff schuul oofer unuzeer. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Reseerchers cun try tu cuntrul fur fecturs leeke-a femeely incume-a und ithneecity oor rece-a, boot zeese-a ere-a croode-a meesoores. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

Vhy, fur instunce-a, du sume-a puur perents sveetch tu a preefete-a schuul vheele-a zeeur iqooelly puur next-duur neeeghburs ere-a cuntent veet poobleec schuul? Ere-a zee preefete-a-schuul perents mure-a muteefeted becoose-a zeey poot mure-a felooe-a oon idooceshun? Oor ere-a zeey joost mure-a desperete-a fur a chunge-a becoose-a zeeur cheeldree vere-a dueeng mooch vurse-a in poobleec schuul thun zee cheeldree next duur?

Zee must sceeentiffic vey tu cumpere-a schuuls is veet zee keend ooff rundumeezed ixpereement thet hes beee cundoocted in Noo Yurk, Deytun und Vesheengtun. Bork bork bork! In zeese-a ceeties, stoodents frum loo-incume-a femeelies vere-a geefee a chunce-a tu epply fur schuul fuoochers. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Effter zee fuoochers vere-a everded by luttery, reseerchers trecked zee fuoocher stoodents in preefete-a schuuls und cumpered zeem veet a cuntrul gruoop: zee lusers ooff zee luttery vhu remeeened in poobleec schuul.

Effter three-a yeers, zee vheete-a und Heespunic fuoocher stoodents vere-a dueeng es vell es zeeur cuoonterperts in poobleec schuul, und zee Effreecun-Emereecun fuoocher stoodents vere-a testeeng a fooll grede-a lefel heegher thun zee blecks in zee cuntrul gruoop. Zee perents ooff ell zee fuoocher stoodents — vheete-a, Heespunic und Effreecun-Emereecun — repurted thet zeere-a ves mooch less feeghting, cheeteeng, fundeleesm und ebsenteeeesm in zeeur schuuls thun deed zee poobleec-schuul perents.

Ifee thuoogh zee preefete-a schuuls spent less muney per poopeel thun zee poobleec schuuls, zee perents vere-a mooch mure-a seteesffied veet zeem. Heppeeer perents, better stoodents, looer custs — thuse-a ere-a zee cleer edfunteges ooff preefete-a schuuls und fuoocher prugrems. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Nu vunder zee teechers’ uneeuns ere-a su boosy speenning.