# data[].attributes.body
- Explains how private isn't really better than public school, but more in depth
- explains both sides; gives a counter argument
- just because people have more money doesn't mean that schools are better, for an example, the teachers aren't always college graduates which is a little confusing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is often assumed that private schools do a better job educating children than public schools, but a new book, " The Public School Advantage," which is being published this week, shows this isn't the case. Here's a piece the authors, Christopher Lubienski, a professor in the Department of Educational Organization and Leadership at the College of Education at University of Illinois, and Sarah Theule Lubienski, professor of mathematics education in the College of Education at the University of Illinois. The Lubienskis looked at two huge datasets of student mathematics performance and found that public school students outperform private school ones, when adjusted for demographics.

By Christopher and Sarah Lubienski

Greater school choice for families and greater autonomy for schools leads to greater academic outcomes, right? Maybe not. Using two nationally representative datasets, we recently conducted one of the most comprehensive studies ever performed of school type and achievement in mathematics-a subject widely held to be the best measure of in-school learning. We analyzed instruction and performance for over 300,000 elementary and middle school students in 15,108 public, charter, and private schools. What we found surprised us. Students in public schools actually outperform those in private schools.

Choice and autonomy are now touchstones of U.S. education reform. Since over two decades ago, when John Chubb and Terry Moe famously argued that "choice is a panacea" and reported that more school autonomy led to better school outcomes, policymakers have been enamored with devolving authority away from school districts and creating options for families.

The number of charter schools in the United States is growing, with almost 6,000 such independent, largely autonomous schools of choice. At the same time, the market share of private schools -non-government schools that, unlike charter schools, are " not supported primarily by public funds " - is declining, creating demands for subsidies on the grounds that the 30,861 private schools do a better job of educating children.

Since 2012, states have adopted or expanded 28 voucher, tax credit or similar programs to subsidize families choosing private schools, and the charter school movement is growing with bipartisan support. These efforts are based on the popular notion that autonomy from state regulation allows schools to respond to parents' preferences for quality education options. Autonomous schools have the freedom and incentive to adopt more effective practices in areas such as curriculum, pedagogy, staffing and management. Thus, the logic goes, they get better results.

However, our analysis of nationally representative samples of Catholic, Lutheran, conservative Christian, and other private schools - a total of 1,355 private schools - raises serious questions about that logic. We found that once we account for the fact that private schools serve families with more advantages associated with academic success-things like money and highly-educated parents-we find that public elementary schools are, on average, simply more effective at teaching mathematics. Indeed, demographic differences more than explain any apparent edge in the raw scores of private school students, and by the time they reach middle school, public school students score ahead of their demographically similar, private school peers, with differences ranging from a few weeks to a full grade level, depending on the type of private school.

Given public education's considerable challenges, these findings are remarkable, and cut at the heart of the current reform movement. Yet they are starting to be echoed by other researchers at the Educational Testing Service, Notre Dame and Stanford universities. How should we understand these patterns?

Current school reform efforts elevate the idea of autonomy, positioning parents as expert choosers and schools as autonomous competitors that embrace effective instructional methods to attract students. This market model for education is neat, appealing, and quite possibly wrong.

Private schools have more operational autonomy, sure, but this autonomy is too often used to maintain outdated strategies that may align with parental preferences but are not particularly effective for educating students.

For example, private school students are more likely than their public school counterparts to sit in rows, complete math worksheets and believe that mathematics is "mostly memorizing facts"-a narrow view that captures neither the breadth of the discipline nor the reasoning that is central to it. In contrast, public schools have moved beyond traditional, repetitive exercises, and more often ask students to solve complex, real-world problems and to learn geometry, data analysis, and early algebra ideas, in addition to basic arithmetic.

This difference can partly be explained by the fact that public school teachers are more likely to be certified and to receive ongoing training in the field, keeping them current on research-based instructional standards and resources supported by professional entities such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Science Foundation. Private school teachers are rarely impelled to receive such training. And despite much criticism, teacher certification and up-to-date instructional practices are actually positive correlates of achievement, and the fact that these are more prevalent in public schools helps explain the public school advantage.

These patterns highlight some of the downsides of autonomy, especially in more competitive conditions where schools may try to play to popular demands instead of embracing professional expertise. In fact, it is not at all clear that parents choose schools primarily on the basis of academic effectiveness. School uniforms, the demographics of a school, and sports programs are easier to observe, and parents often consider these, along with religious values, to be more important than the quality of academic instruction, as consistently shown in studies of parents' school-choice behaviors from places like the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Columbia University. As schools are cast as competing businesses in current reforms, families may be influenced by image over academic substance, just as fast food marketing successfully focuses on fun and not nutrition. Professional models for education avoid this need to play to mass consumer demands, instead focusing on evidence and expertise.

It would be overly simplistic to say that parents are poor choosers when it comes to schools, since they work with the information, options, and priorities that they have. Instead, it appears that more autonomous schools-the private and charter schools so often credited with innovation-are doing a poor job of choosing effective educational strategies, of working on behalf of students, rather than parents. We agree that there are serious problems facing public education. But private models for public education do not appear to be the answer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are private schools better than public schools? New book says 'no'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is often assumed that private schools do a better job educating children than public schools, but a new book, " The Public School Advantage," which is being published this week, shows this isn't the case.

# data[].attributes.body
Really tells us of how much we are at a disadvantage for going to public school, instead of private
- then explains that there are really any differences between them
- gives percentages on how many kids that live in low income houses become more stressed and violent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Too many of America's most disadvantaged children grow up without the skills needed to thrive in the twenty-first century. Whether in educational attainment between income groups or racial/ethnic groups or across geographic locations-inequality persists. Low levels of performance among the most disadvantaged create long-term problems, particularly in an economy in which higher skill levels are more and more valued and the wages available to less-skilled workers are deteriorating. Some researchers claim, on one hand, that educational inequality is due to social class and family background. Others argue that inadequately managed schools bear most of the responsibility for low student achievement.

Under the direction of Greg Duncan (University of California, Irvine) and Richard J. Murnane (Harvard University), Social Inequality and Educational Disadvantage will explore the so-called middle ground between these claims and focus on the impact of neighborhoods, families, and labor markets-the environment around the school-on schooling outcomes. These social domains have direct effects on what and how much children learn. Children growing up in low-income neighborhoods, for example, are much more likely to experience repeated stress from violence and crime that may inhibit cognitive development. Rising income inequality in the United States over the past three decades has increased the importance of understanding how these external environmental factors impact students and schools. The disparities between rich and poor families and neighborhoods have increased, exacerbating the differences between schools and widening the gap in opportunities.

An interdisciplinary team of more than twenty researchers will focus both on the educational performance of disadvantaged students, as well as on the differences in outcomes between rich and poor students. Specifically, they will conduct analyses of existing data to document educational disadvantage in the United States and the correlations between poor educational outcomes and measures of neighborhood, family, and labor market disadvantage. The objective will be to measure educational outcomes broadly, including measures of non-cognitive skills and behaviors as well as measures of cognitive skills and educational attainments. The investigators will also commission new research to look at how children, schools, and school outcomes are affected by disparities in housing and community location, in family demographics and functioning, and in employment and jobs.

Findings from the project will be published in two books. The first edited by Duncan and Murnane, Neighborhood and Family Impacts on Schools (Spring 2011), will examine how such factors as family functioning, neighborhood conditions, school quality, and local labor markets impact schools' ability to improve the academic achievement and educational attainment of disadvantaged students. The second book, intended for a general audience, will focus on raising public awareness of educational disadvantage in the United States, summarize prominent research findings, and suggest policies aimed at reducing educational inequality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social Inequality and Educational Disadvantage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Too many of America's most disadvantaged children grow up without the skills needed to thrive in the twenty-first century. Whether in educational attainment between income groups or racial/ethnic groups or across geographic locations-inequality persists.

# data[].attributes.body
- Shows both sides, poor and rich people
- tells how it doesn't have to be so unequal
- states truthful information and percentages of the differences of punlic and private schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Income defines how well children do at school | Teach First

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join the fight against educational inequality