Martin Carnoy is a professor at Stanford University who has studied education systems around the world.
Carnoy wrote a report for the Economic Policy Institute about the efficacy of vouchers, or their lack thereof. The report is titled “School Vouchers Are Not a Proven Strategy for Improving Student Achievement.” Carnoy reviews the longest-running voucher programs in the U.S. and other countries and finds little evidence that they improve student achievement.
Here is his summary:
“This report seeks to inform that debate by summarizing the evidence base on vouchers. Studies of voucher programs in several U.S. cities, the states of Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and in Chile and India, find limited improvements at best in student achievement and school district performance from even large-scale programs. In the few cases in which test scores increased, other factors, namely increased public accountability, not private school competition, seem to be more likely drivers. And high rates of attrition from private schools among voucher users in several studies raises concerns. The second largest and longest-standing U.S. voucher program, in Milwaukee, offers no solid evidence of student gains in either private or public schools.
“In the only area in which there is evidence of small improvements in voucher schools—in high school graduation and college enrollment rates—there are no data to show whether the gains are the result of schools shedding lower-performing students or engaging in positive practices. Also, high school graduation rates have risen sharply in public schools across the board in the last 10 years, with those increases much larger than the small effect estimated on graduation rates from attending a voucher school.
“The lack of evidence that vouchers significantly improve student achievement (test scores), coupled with the evidence of a modest, at best, impact on educational attainment (graduation rates), suggests that an ideological preference for education markets over equity and public accountability is what is driving the push to expand voucher programs. Ideology is not a compelling enough reason to switch to vouchers, given the risks. These risks include increased school segregation; the loss of a common, secular educational experience; and the possibility that the flow of inexperienced young teachers filling the lower-paying jobs in private schools will dry up once the security and benefits offered to more experienced teachers in public schools disappear.
“The report suggests that giving every parent and student a great “choice” of educational offerings is better accomplished by supporting and strengthening neighborhood public schools with a menu of proven policies, from early childhood education to after-school and summer programs to improved teacher pre-service training to improved student health and nutrition programs. All of these yield much higher returns than the minor, if any, gains that have been estimated for voucher students.”
Carnoy published a shorter version of the report for a popular audience. He wrote an article for the New York Daily News explaining why Trump and DeVos are wrong about school choice, specifically vouchers.
He reviews recent research in plain language. Kids don’t benefit. In some places, they actually lose ground.
As I have often written in this space, if vouchers, charters, and school choice were the solution to the problems of urban education, Milwaukee would be the model district of the nation, as it has had choice since 1990. That’s two full generations of students.
He writes:
If the President and his new secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, were right about choice, Milwaukee would be among the highest-scoring urban school districts in the nation. Milwaukee’s private students would be outscoring those in public schools, and students in public schools would have made large gains because of the intense competition from private and charter schools.
None of that is the case. Research over a four-year period that compared the gains of voucher and public school students in Milwaukee showed that the voucher students did no better. And it’s African Americans, who make up roughly two-thirds of Milwaukee’s student body, who are the main recipients of vouchers and also most likely to attend charter schools.
When we compare the National Assessment of Educational Progress scores — that’s the gold standard of achievement tests — of black students in eighth-grade math and reading in 13 urban U.S. school districts, black students in Milwaukee have lower eighth-grade math scores than students in every city but Detroit — notably, another urban district with a high level of school choice.
In reading, Milwaukee’s black eighth-graders do even more poorly. They score lower than black eighth-graders in all other 12 city school districts.
How many billions will we waste on this failed free-market ideology? As Carnoy points out, investing in proven strategies in public schools with credentialed teachers would have long-term benefits.
Or the next to neediest or America
Sent from my iPhone
>
“. . . that they improve student achievement.”
Don’t give a damn about “student achievement”.
I want to know if the teaching and learning environment is conducive to all students learning what they want to and can learn. And those supposed indicators of “student achievement”, i.e., standardized tests are completely invalid and totally lacking in being able to evaluate, assess, judge, analyze the teaching and learning environment and are a complete waste of educational time, energy and resources!
Let’s see why those supposed measurements of “student achievement” are logically bankrupt:
The most misleading concept/term in education is “measuring student achievement” or “measuring student learning”. The concept has been misleading educators into deluding themselves that the teaching and learning process can be analyzed/assessed using “scientific” methods which are actually pseudo-scientific at best and at worst a complete bastardization of rationo-logical thinking and language usage.
There never has been and never will be any “measuring” of the teaching and learning process and what each individual student learns in their schooling. There is and always has been assessing, evaluating, judging of what students learn but never a true “measuring” of it.
But, but, but, you’re trying to tell me that the supposedly august and venerable APA, AERA and/or the NCME have been wrong for more than the last 50 years, disseminating falsehoods and chimeras??
Who are you to question the authorities in testing???
Yes, they have been wrong and I (and many others, Wilson, Hoffman etc. . . ) question those authorities and challenge them (or any of you other advocates of the malpractices that are standards and testing) to answer to the following onto-epistemological analysis:
The TESTS MEASURE NOTHING, quite literally when you realize what is actually happening with them. Richard Phelps, a staunch standardized test proponent (he has written at least two books defending the standardized testing malpractices) in the introduction to “Correcting Fallacies About Educational and Psychological Testing” unwittingly lets the cat out of the bag with this statement:
“Physical tests, such as those conducted by engineers, can be standardized, of course [why of course of course], but in this volume , we focus on the measurement of latent (i.e., nonobservable) mental, and not physical, traits.” [my addition]
Notice how he is trying to assert by proximity that educational standardized testing and the testing done by engineers are basically the same, in other words a “truly scientific endeavor”. The same by proximity is not a good rhetorical/debating technique.
Since there is no agreement on a standard unit of learning, there is no exemplar of that standard unit and there is no measuring device calibrated against said non-existent standard unit, how is it possible to “measure the nonobservable”?
THE TESTS MEASURE NOTHING for how is it possible to “measure” the nonobservable with a non-existing measuring device that is not calibrated against a non-existing standard unit of learning?????
PURE LOGICAL INSANITY!
Duane,
I have read Wilson, I know the test scores mean nothing to you, and less to me than you think. But it is always the test scores that are used as the rationale for charters and vouchers. If they can’t produce the one thing they promise, that means something. Don’t you think?
I understand what you are saying, hang them by their own petards.
At the same time that helps perpetuate the standards and testing regime by giving tacit approval to a false and error filled process.
And I keep posting the Wilson piece mainly because I figure there are plenty of folks out there who have not heard nor seen anything like what Wilson has done. I figure the “regulars” here have read it and probably skip over my blurb at that point. But my object, again, is to spread the truth on standards and testing to a broader audience.
And thank you, Diane, for graciously allowing me to do so over the last 4 years!!
Diane,
AN observation on choice from Kingsbury piece: Tolerance and anti-semitism issues
How school choice can increase religious and racial tolerance
By IAN KINGSBURY • 3/3/17 8:00 PM
Despite Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’ narrow confirmation vote, Democrats scored a victory in the court of public opinion. Republican lawmakers in purple states faced protests and angry constituent calls. An online poll conducted by the Baltimore Sun found that 55 percent of respondents felt that DeVos was a threat to public education. Social media was ablaze with criticism of DeVos and her support for school choice, including a popular conspiracy that Republicans plan to make the country dumber and more intolerant to benefit themselves in future elections.
Lost in the fray was any evidence for an educational apocalypse. That omission is unsurprising: the best evidence suggests that DeVos’ unapologetic support for school choice poses no threat to American civil society.
A peer-reviewed Journal of School Choice article I coauthored with Jay Greene, “The Effect of Public and Private Schooling on Anti-Semitism,” employed a national random sample of 1,500 adults to test if childhood schooling is related to anti-Semitism. We found that, controlling for a variety of background characteristics, adults educated in Catholic schools were significantly less likely to report anti-Semitic views.
Our methodology does not allow us to conclude that those adults were less anti-Semitic specifically because of the time they spent in Catholic schools (that would require an experiment in which individuals are randomly assigned to private schools), but it does square with other evidence that choice schools are adept at promoting unity compared to public schools.
Indeed, previous research by Greene, David Campbell, Patrick Wolf, and other scholars indicates that private schools in voucher programs are more integrated than traditional public schools at the school and classroom level.
This raises the question: Why might private schools hold an advantage over traditional public schools in promoting tolerance?
One sensible explanation is that Catholic schools, which account for the greatest share of private school enrollment, promote social justice and mutual understanding as tenets of pedagogy. Moreover, while public school attendance is determined by residence and highly segregated on socio-economic lines, Catholic schools are diverse in terms of race, social class, and even religion. They are bulwarks against the Balkanization that critics of school choice fear.
Some evidence suggests that the benefits of private schools in combatting anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance are not limited to Catholic schools. Private schools generally are afforded greater freedom of expression and curriculum than public schools, which are constrained by institutional neutrality. Work by Charles Glenn, Anthony Bryk, and other scholars indicates that private schools have the advantage of allowing students to freely discuss uncomfortable topics that public school teachers avoid for fear of sanction.
While public schools are trying to teach tolerance through platitudes and pro-diversity preaching, private schools have opened the floor to meaningful discussion.
Not just China: US Navy ships challenged territorial claims of 21 other countries last year
Also from the Washington Examiner
Not just China: US Navy ships challenged territorial claims of 21 other countries last year
By Jacqueline Klimas • 03/06/17 2:10 PM
A simpler explanation is that more tolerance reflects more learning, since most research indicates that private schools deliver somewhat better academic outcomes, even when controlling for student characteristics. Private schools might simply be better than teaching tolerance of Jews just as they are better at imparting knowledge.
The benefits of private schools vis-à-vis civic values are not confined to integration and prejudicial attitudes. Other studies suggest that they may also hold an advantage in promoting voluntarism, civics knowledge and political participation. A report that I will soon deliver at an Association for Education Finance and Policy conference provides evidence that Catholic schools increase voting turnout, an important measure of civic health.
This is not to conclude that vouchers and charter schools are a panacea, as it is impossible to conclude that scaling up vouchers or charter schools will produce the same results. What the evidence does suggest, however, is that doom and gloom prognostications are premature: properly constructed choice schools have the potential and perhaps an advantage to promote a more tolerant, progressive, and unified union.
Ian Kingsbury is a doctoral fellow in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas.
jscheidell,
I take everything from the U of Arkansas with a few grains of salt. The Department of Education Reform is underwritten by the Walton Family Foundation.
It is indisputable–in Chile, in Sweden and in the US–that choice exacerbates segregation.
jscheidell,
The “Choice” movement for the public sector in competition with the for-profit private sector is another word for “Anarchy” based on a self-serving platform of greed and power.
Just because you, or I, or anyone pays taxes to support public sector services, that doesn’t mean we should have a choice to spend that money for private-sector services competing with the public-sector services.
That is ignorant thinking to the max.
For instance, when we go shopping for shoes in the private sector, we have a choice to shop at many private sector stores. Do you expect me to pay for your shoes through my taxes?
The public sector is where the U.S. Constitution was meant to offer the people protection from its own government. This so-called “CHOICE” movement funded by billionaires like the Koch Brothers and Betsy DeVos is nothing but a road to “ANARCHY” and it will subvert the U.S. Constitution and take away that protection for the public.
In addition, I don’t want any of my tax money to pay for your child’s private sector religious schooling and/or to profit a private sector corporation.
That’s when this mess boils down to my choice vs yours. That’s where it becomes pure BS.
Open that Pandora’s box and it will lead to a checklist on our tax returns where we can check off where we will each decide what our taxes will support and what they will not fund.
If half the country checks “NO” for supporting the military or, for instance, paying the salaries of elected representative in Congress, then what happens when there isn’t enough money to support those services.
If I had that choice, I will send my taxes to the traditional community-based, democratic public schools, the EPA, the Sierra Club, the ACLU, Greenpeace, NPR, PBS, and public sector managed early childhood education. Not one cent would go to any religious or private-sector school, private-sector for-profit prison, private-sector police, etc.
Have you asked why the voters aren’t being asked to vote for “CHOICE”?
Have you asked why “CHOICE” is only going through state legislatures and the U.S. Congress and bypassing voters?
If this “CHOICE” is so great, why not let the voters decide at the ballot box?
The answer is simple and that answer explains why the billionaires are now funding elections to get their minions elected instead of ballot initiatives because for several decades the majority of American voters have already made their choice by voting no for choice repeatedly.
Lofty,
“In addition, I don’t want any of my tax money to pay for your child’s private sector religious schooling and/or to profit a private sector corporation.
That’s when this mess boils down to my choice vs yours. That’s where it becomes pure BS.”
I did not proffer the idea that your tax dollars would follow my kids to a school of their choice – it would be only my school tax bill – so it doesn’t seem to boil down to your choice vs mine….
In one sentence you ask why CHOICE never gets to the ballot for the citizens and then you say “The answer is simple and that answer explains why the billionaires are now funding elections to get their minions elected instead of ballot initiatives because for several decades the majority of American voters have already made their choice by voting no for choice repeatedly” Then I would say maybe the citizens in those communities didn’t vote for choice they voted for representatives that may not have indicated their stance on choice, or for that matter maybe the debate on the issue never materialized to a level of understanding. Unaware low information voters? It sounds like choice is not a local issue but one which resides at state or federal level. Like CHARTERS = in my state you can’t get around our governor and state board of ed who love them….
I have been retired for 12 years and still pay the public school taxes to the district that I sent my kids to as well as the same district that I served as a school board member – no qualms from me….but my school district is a middle to upper middle class district with a very excellent school that provides a solid education.
As for the other – the EPA, the Sierra Club, the ACLU, Greenpeace, NPR, – Im not overjoyed that the feds feed some of them
Speaking of BS, “Scheidy,” you are full of it.
JC,
How can you have a choice without everyone having a choice for the same thing?
I still have a choice in a vote for representatives which represent my visions
This is why I wouldnt vote for a dem or lib in their desire for socialism – a failed system good by to sanders who got hijacked by hillary and petesta hacked emails. Choice at the ballot box – and I havent seen although it may have existed, a ballot question on choice or vouchers or charters. I speek in front of the state board of ed to voice my issues against these directions – a choice to speak or stay quiet – the latter is the worst choice.
My opinions may be in opposition or sometimes a challenge to the echo chAmber here but the “put-downs” speak volumes
You evidently are ignorant about the risk of the U.S. becoming a socialist country. Even under Sanders, it wouldn’t happen.
Yes, exactly, Lloyd.
I agree with your choices regarding what I would like my tax money to support. I would also add a few others, like Doctors Without Borders, more money for basic scientific research, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and so on.
As it is, I donate as much as we are able to all those various organizations.
I do not want my tax money going to private schools.
Apparently, jscheidell and others who comment here do not believe in “the common good.” Or promoting “the general welfare,” which is is the Preamble to the US Constitution.
They want what they want, and the he!! with everyone else.
To quote Trump on Twitter: “Sad.”
We are all in this together, but I guess some people don’t believe in that.
Vouchers serve no value other than to support the whims of a small group of ideologues that believe vouchers improve student performance, despite clear evidence to the contrary. This legitimate study exposes this erroneous assumption. Unregulated vouchers will harm public schools, and either raise taxes for local property owners or cut services for public schools. The economic impact may cause some districts to collapse under the weight of this irresponsible free market, free for all. This report should be sent to Trump and DeVos along with this conclusion of the study.
“The lack of evidence that vouchers significantly improve student achievement (test scores), coupled with the evidence of a modest, at best, impact on educational attainment (graduation rates), suggests that an ideological preference for education markets over equity and public accountability is what is driving the push to expand voucher programs.”
Maybe we should bombard them with this quote to let them know that we know what their reckless agenda is? Maybe this study should also be sent to every representative?
Another fine EPI analysis . There is something to be said for evidenced based economics that EPI provides.
Just yesterday there was another fluff piece on CNN on vouchers. With a 7 year old in Florida telling us how she hated her public school, even the food, ,but loves her voucher enabled religious school. Glad I had recovered from the Norovirus by yesterday.
Talking evidenced based EPI reports here is one on another topic. From EPI last week on a topic we have discussed.
http://www.epi.org/publication/robots-or-automation-are-not-the-problem-too-little-worker-power-is/?mc_cid=2850b1cb4c&mc_eid=a20f783394
Vouchers will lead too many students into cheap, dumb down schools that may delight and entertain young people, but may not prepare them for a meaningful future. The value of a voucher is not going to provide students with an equitable opportunity, and poor students cannot afford to supplement the low amount. They make no academic sense.
No argument from me
The free market ideology isn’t the only factor. The Christian Right (CR) has another goal. To align the U.S. Constitution to their extreme religious beliefs and turn the U.S. into a theocracy, a religious dictatorship, where children are taught only what the CR wants them to learn. The CR is no different than what ISIS wants for all of Islam.
They would love to institute Christian Sharia law.
How better to do this than to brainwash more and more school children into this ideology?
One of the amazing things I have seen in public education is the positive effect of meeting and learning about people that are different from yourself. Learning how to interact with different types of people is a big asset in the diverse, real world, and it is a “college and career ready” skill, in the Gatesian vernacular!
Here’s a matter of fact review of vouchers which includes a list of what vouchers really do. They are welfare for the wealthy.
http://russonreading.blogspot.com/2017/03/school-vouchers-welfare-for-rich-racist.html
Welfare for the upper middle class and wealthy class is in the category of corporate welfare. What we see happening under the GOP majority and the malignant narcissist in the White House is an end to social safety net programs for most of the people, and a shift to reward only the winners. If you are labeled a loser, you will be punished with starvation, homelessness, and a miserable early death without medical care.
“The 965 companies in the report received over $110 billion of public money. Berkshire Hathaway, a company with $485 billion in assets and $20 billion in profits, received over $1 billion of that money. Its chair, Warren Buffett, is worth about $58 billion. Buffett, by the way, is still a darling of the left. He has some nerve to call for higher taxes. The billion dollars his companies took would pay for a lot of teachers, healthcare, and other public goods.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#1ddba1f427dd
Government Spends More On Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs.
“About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent nearly 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.”
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-vs-social-welfare/
And where does the malignant narcissist in the White House fit in this world where fraud and lies is legal and acceptable for those in power?
A Trump Empire Built on Inside Connections and $885 million in Tax Breaks.
Cross posted at Oped news: https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/School-vouchers-are-not-a-in-General_News-Accountability_Public-Education_Reviews_School-170306-917.html
Nothing will stop the deep state’s billionaires from privatizing education as they did health care…but we can machete hard for them.
It welcome down to a state level, where we can THROW THE BUMS OUT, and put in legislators who will DO THE JOB FOR OUR KIDS!
Add CHOICE to the equation of vouchers – Martin Carnoy gives a different slant regarding Singer:
Top 10 Reasons HuffPo Doesn’t Get School Choice
Steven Singer of The Huffington Post would have you believe that when parents have more choices, they have fewer choices.
Mary C. Tillotson
By Mary C. Tillotson
MARCH 6, 2017
Steven Singer of The Huffington Post would have you believe that when parents have more choices, they have fewer choices. That’s the long and short of a recent article, “Top 10 Reasons School Choice Is No Choice,” which is basically a list of 10 bogus reasons for minimizing parents’ say in their children’s education. Let’s take a look.
Claim 1: ‘Voucher programs almost never provide students with full tuition.’
Singer claims vouchers would only be useful if they covered the entire tuition bill, and only give rich people discounts. That’s absurd for a number of reasons.
First of all, rich people often do not have legal access to voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs. Of the 47 voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs EdChoice counts, 26 are only available to families under a certain income level (24) or give priority to low-income families (2). So there are only 21 programs rich people can even make use of, 15 of which are for special-needs children.
Secondly, discounts matter. I once changed pharmacies because my prescription would have been more than $300 at one and around $8 at another. Singer’s logic would have me without the medicine I needed, because the discount I found didn’t cover the entire prescription cost.
Parent choice programs typically cover a few thousand dollars of tuition, and tuition at a typical parochial school usually runs a few thousand dollars. There are plenty of families who can’t afford $4,000 tuition but can come up with $1,000. Some schools geared especially for low-income kids deliberately charge the voucher amount for tuition because they’re targeting a demographic that can’t afford more.
If this is a system designed to give rich people discounts, it’s very poorly designed indeed.
Claim 2: Choice schools don’t have to accept everyone.
Singer would have you believe that charter schools and private schools receiving voucher money are cherry-picking the best students to stoke their egos and stats. This isn’t true, and even if it were, it would still provide more choices.
Some private and charter schools do have some type of admissions requirement, but most don’t. Tuition and waitlists are more common barriers to entry that vouchers and increased access to schools would relieve.
There’s also nothing wrong with admissions requirements. Some schools aim to meet a particular need, and can meet it better if they can create a particular type of culture. When there’s a culture of hard work, academic focus, and reaching goals, students are more likely to do these things. Or some schools orient themselves around specific concepts that do not appeal to every family: Montessori, Chinese-language immersion, and so forth.
Furthermore, the fact that some schools don’t admit some students doesn’t mean there’s “no choice.” Let’s say, hypothetically, that one child’s only option is the local public school. Another child in a different area can attend the local public school, or, if he passes an admissions test, attend a local Christian school. The second child has one option and a possible second; the first child has one option, period. Why cut off options for the second child just because every child doesn’t have the exact same ones?
Claim 3: Charter schools are notorious for kicking out hard-to-teach students.
Charter schools are also notorious for reaching out to hard-to-teach students and catering specifically to their needs. Skeptics might check out KIPP and Yes Prep charter networks, in addition to the dozens of independent charter and private schools following their models.
Claim 4: Choice schools actually give parents less choice than traditional public schools.
Here, Singer argues that while school boards are elected and parents can have their voices heard at public board meetings, private and charter schools are “not accountable to parents” and parents’ only option is to pull their children from the school.
This is actually the whole point of school choice. Parents ought to have the ability to “vote with their feet” if their current school is unsatisfactory. They also don’t have to leave to get this effect, because choice schools know the leave option is live, which makes it less likely parents will need it. When governments restrict access to schools, only the rich can vote with their feet by moving or paying private tuition.
Singer writes, “If you don’t like what your public school is doing, you can organize, vote for new leadership or even take a leadership role, yourself.” But seriously, who has time for that? Some people, yes, but not the single mom working two jobs to make ends meet. It’s a lot easier—and a lot faster, which matters in the life of a child—to enroll a child in a different school than to slog through the political process.
Claim 5: Charter schools don’t perform better than traditional public schools.
Both charter and traditional public schools range in quality from excellent to severely lacking. More important is the comparison between the schools available in your city or county. If your local charter schools are terrible, don’t send your kids there. If your local traditional public schools are terrible, well, you probably hope there’s another option.
Claim 6: Charters and vouchers increase segregation.
It depends on how you look at the data, but this much is clear: neighborhoods are often racially segregated, and when students are assigned to schools based on where they live, their schools will be segregated as well. School choice gives parents the option of sending their kids to schools outside their neighborhood-assigned school, preventing them from being forced to stay in a highly segregated school.
School choice programs, in Singer’s words, “either aid in white flight or leach away minority students.” That’s basically a scary way of saying white students and minority students can leave schools they find unsatisfactory. Well, they should be able to.
Anti-choicers should be cautious when using race to argue against school choice. Since most scholarship programs are reserved for children of low-income families, black and Hispanic students are most likely to be able to use them. President Obama’s administration tried using the desegregation argument to attack a Louisiana voucher program where 90 percent of voucher recipients were minorities. Then-governor Bobby Jindal, himself a minority, astutely noted the case “proves the people in Washington running our federal government are more interested in skin color than they are in education.”
Claim 7: Charter and voucher schools take away funding from traditional schools.
Well, sort of. Private schools charge tuition on a per-student basis, and public schools receive state funding in a similar way. Any time a student changes schools, the tuition money or per-pupil funding will no longer be available to the student’s original school. Why should schools receive money to educate kids they aren’t educating?
Of course, the costs associated with educating a child at any school aren’t exactly in line with per-pupil funding. Costs such as the number of custodians and administrators vary somewhat with the number of students, but not exactly.
Private schools deal with this all the time, and they don’t net more money per-pupil like public schools do when students leave. Public school administrators might consider learning how they manage it, or finding ways to decrease costs in other areas.
Claim 8: Funding a variety of schools would be wasteful and expensive.
Singer shows his cards when he brings up about “parallel school systems”: he is thinking bureaucratically, considering “school systems” instead of the actual children who are the reason schools exist in the first place.
Claim 9: School choice distracts from the real problems: poverty and funding equity.
Throwing money at problems is a terrible idea when bureaucracies are involved, because this typically results in administrative bloat with no actual improvements. Fun fact: There was a 702 percent increase in non-teaching administrators at public schools from 1950 to 2009, compared to a 96 percent increase in students. There wasn’t any significant increase in student achievement during that time.
Public schools should do what the rest of us have to: look for smart ways to spend less. Teachers often purchase classroom supplies out-of-pocket, which is given as evidence that schools need more money. Maybe, but it seems more likely a sign that someone up the bureaucratic chain is making poor financial choices.
Without that increase in administrators, for example, every public school teacher’s salary could be raised by more than $11,000, or perhaps $10,000 with a $1,000 classroom supplies budget. Maybe Washington and state capitals need to hear that their regulations are too expensive. Maybe public schools could partner with local churches and community organizations to meet the needs of children in poverty (which is likely to be cost-effective). There are all kinds of creative solutions for people willing to look.
Singer is right that poverty is a huge issue. Why not let the charter and voucher schools who want to take kids in poverty take them? Many of these schools are deliberately designed to help kids in poverty, and they work.
Claim 10: School choice is supported by billionaires, not the grassroots.
More than 21,000 independently planned events took place during National School Choice Week 2017 in January. Apparently it is “baloney” to say parents want school choice, but that is like saying millennials don’t want the latest iPhone, or that people don’t like shopping on Black Friday. When products are sold out, we know demand is high.
When 5,500 North Carolinians apply for 2,400 available vouchers, or when nearly 8,000 Louisiana students are on voucher wait lists, or when Florida routinely bumps up the total number of tax-credit scholarships awarded in response to high demand, it’s baloney to claim parents don’t want school choice.
Like most anti-choicers, Singer relies on bad data, bad interpretation of data, conspiracy theories, and just making stuff up to discredit the school choice movement. Instead of trying to preserve a school system, let’s focus on getting kids the best education possible—at whatever school is right for them.
jscheidell,
I don’t know of any research that says vouchers are superior to public schools.
Billionaires support privatization of public schools.
Choice is a fine idea so long as it doesn’t take public money away from public schools.
If the billionaires want choice for poor kids, why don’t they pay for it?
Bill Gates is worth $60-80 billion. He could give a scholarship to every poor kid in America and leave our public schools alone.
Question – I pay local taxes and in the sum owed is the school tax…why can’t I get that same sum and move my kids to a school of my choice that, IMHO, may produce a better education than the public? It would be up to me to pay whatever the excess is required by the accepting school.
Those school taxes may not produce an education comparable to the school I would like to send my kids to after researching. As a parent I may not be able to move out of a district that has a sub-par school, but I believe I owe it to my kids to do what I can to give them a step out and up.
I pay federal taxes, and I am a pacifist and don’t believe in war. Why should I pay for our war machine?
Zorba,
The war machine may provide the protection for you to continue to be a pacifist and live dong it – the soldiers – “some give their all” provide you that security – thank them when you get the chance!
But may I add the following thought to my original question and extend it to spending on education
The roots of the long and contentious debate about whether we should spend more for K-12 education can be found in two sentences from the famous 1966 report led by James Coleman:
“It is known that socioeconomic factors bear a strong relation to academic achievement. When these factors are statistically controlled, however, it appears that differences between schools account for only a small fraction of differences in pupil achievement (pp. 21-22).[1]”
Does spending money to close the gap matter- federal education spending focuses directly on giving states and districts money to close achievement gaps, which assumes money matters, but isn’t the factor – socioeconomics- the real issue creating the gap.
The spending question is still active. Decades after famous cases like the 1971 Serrano v. Priest case in California, equalization cases are currently working their way through courts in Connecticut, California, Texas, and elsewhere. And the nearly-authorized Every Student Succeeds Act continues to provide billions under its Title I program to close gaps.
Zorba
Your comments have now dived into the emblematic position of libs – when nothing cogent can be proffered – result to name calling, and cursing
Well said – and the hypocrisy of a lib standing for tolerance is not in your basket – how deplorable, such an irredeemable individual…
Jscheidell,
Please, it is you who is calling names. Civility matters here. Behave or go away. This is a blog where most people are “liberals,” that is, they actually care about children and education and democracy. That seems to be a problem for you.
Yes, Diane, it certainly is. He can trash everyone who disagrees with him, but cannot stand being disagreed with, himself.
We have a name for this. It’s called “hypocrisy.”
JC’s allegation of name calling falls under the category of Alt-Right politically correct speech/language where it is okay for the Alt-Right and/or far right, and/or any type of conservative to call everyone to their left names, but it is not acceptable for anyone to the left of that extreme right to call them names in return.
The far right and all other extreme rights have been calling “liberals” names for decades just by turning the term “liberal” into something negative and allegedly evil.
Yet, who fought for the Civil Rights of all citizens?
Who fought to free the slaves?
Who fought for labor unions to represent workers?
Who fought for Social Security?
Who fought for medicare?
Who fought for women to have the right to vote?
Who continues to fight for women to have the right to earn equal pay for the same job men work?
Who fought for that insurance that protects our bank accounts?
Who fought for unemployment insurance?
Who protested the war in Vietnam once we knew it was based on lies and the only benefit of that war was the feed the Ameican weapons industry profits?
The answer is liberal and progressive thinking people. Meanwhile, conservatives have and still want to keep everything the same as it had been back in the late 18th century or even further back in time of the world depicted in the Old Testament.
This list is long. I could go on for days.
Yes, of course, Lloyd. Well said.
No it is not a problem for me – but as you once noted – a “tickle” –
I do care for children and education – you must have missed the background I earlier gave – I only used the names that hillary drew out of her basket – hmmmm
Everything for Lofty is Altright – but I never brought up BS I know Diane does not want this on the blog — go check the former comments from Loyd
The name calling goes way back to Loyd;s comments regarding Trump – and a number of other liberals here –
I have no problem being disagreed with but will challenge it if needed
And Loyd – you got the moniker because of your ALT -Left desire to call trump every name in the book – including your favorite “Little Fingers”
So, I can only at the moment attend to one question – on slave issue –
Recent comments by President Obama indicated the history of our country is racist.
Is the Republicans Party racist?
There are members of the press who find racism only in the Republicans, though the Press supported Barack Obama who feasts on racism accusations. Do you realize that Republicans freed the slaves against Democrat opposition?
Republicans since Lincoln supported anti-racist ideas and people.
Here are some history facts:
Republicans passed 14th and 15th and 19th amendments.
Republicans elected first African American Senator in 1870.
Republicans passed the Civil rights act disabling the KKK, until it arose again under the Administration of Woodrow Wilson (D).
Republicans passed the law banning discrimination in public accommodations.
Calvin Coolidge (R), signed the Indian Citizen Act, written by a NY Republican.
Bertha Landes (R), was the first woman elected as mayor of a large American City, Seattle Washington.
1940, Republican National Convention approved a plank in its platform calling for racial integration of the armed forces.
1948 President Truman finally complied with the Republicans’ demands.
U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Arkansas board of Education, written by a Republican, that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.
President Dwight David Eisenhower (R), forced integration of Little Rock Arkansas, per his Executive Order 10730.
Hiram Fong of Hawaii, the First Asian-American U.S. Senator was a Republican.
1962, Judge Tuttle (R), ordered the University of Mississippi to admit its first African-American student, James Meredith.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by the efforts of Everett Dirksen (R) against filibuster of Democrats Russell and Thurmond.
President Nixon (R), directed his Labor Secretary to require Federal Contractors to enforce affirmative action programs.
2003 George W. Bush lead U S military and allies against the Taliban liberating Afghan Women voting rights, and education.
just a beginning observation that the dems don’t own it as they claim
Today’s Republicans have nothing on common with Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower.
Today’s Republicans are isolationists and play footsie with racists and xenophobia.
Yes, civility does matter – but not to Hillary who put half the nation in her basket of name calling or Obama who derided the Bible hugging, gun toting redneck individuals…and Lloyd hasn’t been reprimanded by you regarding his name calling of “Little Fingers” – and how many times – and I don’t think Loyd has enough “fingers and Toes” to count – the use of “racist, sexist, islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic Alt-Right” labels this group has issued numerous times in their replies. I readily realize that there are many liberals on the blog and there are conservatives as well – evident when the topic falls back to education related topics. So, I ask, any way we can drop all the labels and generate the civility that matters here?
I agree that Trump was elected by racists, xenophobes, misogynists, anti-Semites, etc.
Are their views deplorable?
You betcha.
You are the one who first brought up “BS,” and called Lloyd “Lofty.”
Look in the mirror.
Or, to say it another way, remove the beam from your own eye, before you criticize the mote in another’s eye.
But you apparently don’t even recognize this.
Loyd
Socialism, medicare, drip by drip in the name of “general welfare” and look at all the Hollywood leaders who love Cuba and Venezuela etc –
Now you sound like someone from the far Alt Right throwing out all the biased programmed alternative facts.
How many of these alleged Hollywood leaders love Cuba and Venezuela and when did they represent every person that collects SS and is on Medicare? Name all these alleged Hollywood types. And once we count the number on that list, let’s look at how long the list is of people that collect Social Security and use Medicare.
How many are Republicans?
How many are Democrats?
How many are independent voters?
How many never voted vs how many voted?
For some of the answers, go to SSA.gov’s Fact Sheet
Click to access basicfact-alt.pdf
What about Food Stamps?
17 percent are Conservative
17 percent are Moderate
17 percent are Liberal
45 percent of food stamp benefits went to children under 18
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/who-uses-food-stamps-millions-children-n52931
Lloyd,
Names of Hollywoods in love with Venezuela again from multiple google lists …
Start with: Sean Penn was pretty much Hugo Chávez’s BFF, praising him at every opportunity. When Chávez died, Penn mourned him and said, “Venezuela and its revolution will endure under the proven leadership of vice president [Nicolas] Maduro.”
And so it has. Maduro has continued Chávez’s policies with results that would only surprise people like Penn.
Michael Moore, who never misses an opportunity to stick his fingers in a dictatorial pie, always talked up the way Chávez allegedly shared his country’s oil profits with the people. After meeting Chávez, he tweeted, “He used the oil $ 2 eliminate 75% of extreme poverty, provide free health education 4 all.”
In 2007, Naomi Campbell interviewed Chávez for British GQ, calling him a “rebel angel” and praising Venezuela’s social programs.
“I am amazed by what I have seen here in only 24 hours,” Campbell was quoted as saying after visiting the new Children’s Heart Hospital in Caracas. “It’s marvelous to know and see what is being implemented here in Venezuela.”
Where’s Campbell now? CNN reports violent crime is rampant and gunshot victims are sitting in filthy hospitals with no medical supplies. One victim of an armed robbery had a “makeshift surgical drain, made from an empty gallon bottle, [that] draws fluid from his lungs. All the supplies, from gauze to syringes, had to be purchased out of his pocket.”
Where’s Michael Moore touting this free health-care? Did the armed robbers get the free education, or what?
the Commie-and-socialist-loving dummies would rethink their support for an ideology that leads again and again to mass violence, mass oppression and mass starvation. But no, they keep on spouting their nonsense as if they haven’t been proven wrong at every turn.
While he’s not a Hollywood celebrity, David Sirota’s 2013 article in Salon, titled “Hugo Chávez’s economic miracle,” should not be forgotten, either. In it, Sirota suggested the United States follow Venezuela’s example and nationalize the oil and bank industries.
“Chávez became the bugaboo of American politics because his full-throated advocacy of socialism and redistributionism at once represented a fundamental critique of neoliberal economics, and also delivered some indisputably positive results,” Sirota gushed.
Ronald Reagan said that freedom and democracy “will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history,” but he may have underestimated the usefulness of Hollywood idiots.
Sirota and his friends need to look the people of Caracas, dehydrated because they have no water, in the face and tell them about these supposed positive results. The people of Venezuela are owed something from these people.
add the following: Barack Obama, Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Courtney Love, Danny Glover, Gregory Meeks, Susan Sarandon, Jesse Jackson Sr.,
Jscheidell,
I went to Cuba in 2013. People are desperately poor, eager to join the 21st century. You should go there.you would like it. You don’t have to be a Communist to love Cuba.
Loyd,
In regards to women and voting I am sad that Diane didn’t jump on this but please check my history book –
Most educated Americans vaguely remember that the amendment granting women the right to vote was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920. But the number of people who know anything about the forty-year legislative war that preceded that victory is smaller than the audience of MSNBC. That war began in 1878, when a California Republican named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress. It finally ended four decades later, when the Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats — including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as “Kaiser Wilson.”
One of the most interesting battles in the long congressional war over women’s suffrage involved the Mormons of Utah. In 1870, nearly fifty years before Congress passed the 19th Amendment, the territory of Utah granted women the right to vote. This was encouraged by congressional opponents of polygamy, which was practiced by some wealthy Mormons. Their hope was that given the vote, Utah’s women would quickly put an end to “the abomination of bigamy.” And the women of Utah did indeed prove to have strong opinions regarding this issue. They voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. Congress responded by passing the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1882, which disfranchised Utah’s women while also violating the First Amendment by outlawing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and seizing much of its property.
Meanwhile, the Republicans continued to introduce the 19th Amendment in Congress every year, but the Democrats were able to keep it bottled up in various committees for another decade before allowing either chamber to vote on it. In 1887 it finally reached the floor of the Senate. Once again, however, it was defeated by a vote of 34 to 16. After this setback, advocates of women’s suffrage opted to put pressure on Congress by convincing various state legislatures to pass bills giving women the vote. This met with some success. By the turn of the century a variety of Republican-controlled states, including Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho, had granted women suffrage. During the first ten years of the new century, several other states gave women the vote, including Washington and California.
Congress, however, didn’t deign to vote on the issue again until 1914, when it was once again defeated by Senate Democrats. It was subsequently brought up for a vote in January of 1915 in the House, where it went down by a vote of 204 to 174. Nonetheless, the Republicans continued to push even after it was defeated yet again in early 1918. The big break for 19th Amendment came when President Wilson, a true Democrat, violated his most solemn campaign promise. Having pledged to keep the United States out of the European conflict that had been raging since 1914, he decided to enter the war anyway. This set the stage for the 1918 midterm elections in which voter outrage swept the Republicans into power in both the House and the Senate. This finally placed the GOP in a position to pass the amendment despite Democrat opposition.
During the following spring Rep. James R. Mann, a Republican from Illinois, reintroduced the 19th Amendment in the House and it finally passed by an overwhelming majority. Shortly thereafter a now Republican-controlled Senate also passed it, clearing the way for ratification by the states. By this point, President Wilson had also faced the reality that women would inevitably get the vote and abandoned his opposition. But the Democrats’ resistance was by no means dead. They did their level best to prevent the amendment from being ratified: “When the Amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states that ratified it had Republican legislatures.
Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were Democratic.” Many of these Democrat-controlled states refused to ratify the amendment until the 1970s.
Jscheidell,
The Republicans of a century ago have nothing in common with the Republicans of 2017.
Those in the early 20th century were progressives. Think Teddy Roosevelt. Today’s Republicans are 180 degrees away.
The issue was not comparing republicans of different times, and one could easily say Jack Kennedy wouldn’t be happily accepted as a democrat – Kennedy’s fierce anti-communism, his religious devotion (he gave faith-based speeches of a kind Michele Bachmann might consider extreme today) and his advocacy for low deficits, a strong dollar, free trade, tax cuts, free enterprise and individual responsibility. Didn’t care much for the voodoo economics of Keynesianism. “I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.”
Even Kennedy’s “ask what you can do for your country” line may not be as chilling an endorsement of state supremacy as it appears: longtime Democratic operative and pundit Chris Matthews believes it was simply a “hard Republican-sounding slap at the welfare state.” JFK didn’t seem to foresee what would happen to Medicare, calling it “a very modest proposal cut to meet absolutely essential needs, and with sufficient ‘deductible’ requirements to discourage any malingering or unnecessary overcrowding of our hospitals.” He also twice rejected a union proposal to reduce the work week from 40 hours to 35.
He kept deficits modestIf JFK were here today, he would either have to renounce most of what he stood for or join the Republican party.
I guess the point to be made is, IMHO, the context of time and the labels of republican and democrat are the view to be made
You’re plagiarizing again. Use your own words and ideas. If you can’t, then make it clear to your reader that you’re using someone else’s. This is a speech you should have gotten in middle-school.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2013/11/08/modern-democrats-would-view-john-f-kennedy-as-a-reaganite-extremist/#607e46223beb
Diane,
I agree Cuba has those problems – but I guess Hollywood type think it is great –
And no I don’t need to go to Cuba -but a good cigar and one of the antiques cars would be a reason!
Im still waiting for the 29 or so Hollywoods to leave as they claimed they would if Trump won – now there is a contribution worth it to help them go –
Loyd didn’t specify a year – only one that you mentioned – Republicans have a longer history…
Lloyd,
Some of the names of Hollywood libs you asked for – from various news sources – googled
Fidel Castro, the Cuban “Liíder Máximo” who died at 90 on Friday, was a subject of fascination for Hollywood. Figures from Oliver Stone to Harry Belafonte to Steven Spielberg traveled to Cuba to meet him over the years.
Here are some of the Hollywood luminaries who met with Castro, or tried to, and offered words of admiration despite the leader’s tainted record on human rights.
Sean Penn in Cuba: Hollywood’s Still in Love With Fidel:
Film director Steven Spielberg accepted an invitation in 2002 from Cuba’s film institute to attend a Cuban film festival featuring Spielberg’s work.
Jack Nicholson visited the island in 1998 and was followed by Cuban intelligence. Delfin Fernandez , a Cuban intelligence operative who defected in 1999 after becoming disillusioned with the regime, has recounted having bugged both Jack Nicholson and Leonardo DiCaprio’s rooms during their visits. Nicholson told Variety at the time that “he [Castro] is a genius. We spoke about everything.”
The actor Jack Lemmon was praised by the Castro government at his death in 2001 for being “a friend of Cuba.”
Oliver Stone and Fidel Castro in ‘Comandante’
Oliver Stone was widely criticized for a 2003 documentary about Castro, “Comandante,” that allowed the dictator to tell his story his own way.
Stone called Castro “very selfless and moral. One of the world’s wisest men.”
Kevin Costner went to Cuba in 2001 to preview his film “13 Days” at a private screening for Castro: “It was an experience of a lifetime to sit only a few feet away from him and watch him relive an experience he lived as a very young man,” he said at a press conference at the time.
Model Naomi Campbell was in awe of the Communist leader when she and Kate Moss met him in 1999. “I’m so nervous and flustered because I can’t believe I have met him. He said that seeing us in person was very spiritual,” Campbell told the Toronto Star.
Robert Redford met Fidel Castro more than once.
From the Los Angeles Times in 2004:
Redford was in Cuba over the weekend wearing his producer’s hat for a private screening of “The Motorcycle Diaries” for the widow and children of the legendary Argentine guerrilla fighter, who was Castro’s comrade-in-arms. “He came to me…. He seemed in good health, good humor, good spirit,” Redford said of the 77-year-old Cuban leader after their brief encounter at the 8Hotel Nacional.
Redford last saw Castro in 1988. The actor was said to have gone scuba-diving with the Cuban leader and was later questioned by U.S. officials.
At a 2000 Earth Day event, actor Chevy Chase declared, “Sometimes socialism works… Cuba might prove that.”
Tell that to the thousands of Cuban people who suffered under his regime, which was tantamount to a police state. And tell that to the millions of Cubans who risked death to flee their country and find freedom in the United States.
Hollywood loves over-the-top revolutionary figures and happy endings, but in the case of Fidel Castro, it has taken hero-worship too far. The story of Cuba isn’t one of sunny socialism; it’s a tale of brutal repression and economic degradation.
Longtime left-wing activist Harry Belafonte has also endorsed the policies of Castro.
“If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy, you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!” the actor-singer once declared.
francis ford coppola
“We both have beards,” Oscar winning director Francis Ford Coppola once said. “We both have power and want to use it for good purposes.”
Other celebrities who embraced Castro-led Cuba over the years include Danny Glover, Gina Lollobrigida, Ed Asner and Woody Harrelson.
How many Hollywood names on that list vs the 50 million or so that survive off of Social Security and rely on Medicare? Do you have enough fingers and toes to count them all?
Explain how a hand-and-foot full of Hollywood people are linked to the millions of normal Americans that only have SS and Medicare in old age who come from all walks of life.
Who cares about Cuba? I don’t care if Cuba was a communist state.
Who cares about Venezuela?
The U.S. fought a war in Vietnam for 19 years that killed millions and maimed even more, and Vietnam is still a communist country and if you learn what life was like before the communists came along, you will discover the quality of life has improved.
For instance, in China in 1949 the average lifespan was 35 and the poverty rate was more than 90-percent. Today, the average lifespan is in the 70’s and the Chinese dominate global tourism to the tune of more than 100-million traveling to visit the world annually. In the last thirty years, China is responsible for 90-percent of the reduction of poverty in the world.
The Chinese that have the money to travel are allowed to go wherever they want.
And in the U.S. the average lifespan is in reverse and poverty is growing.
Diane,
Info on Kennedy and democratic party – from multiple resources one can attain – google
Flerp,
I added a comment at 10:11 indicating that my comments were from multiple sources – I guess my little fingers were too fast when hitting the send button, but I did try to catch up almost immediately – check the times – sorry it wasn’t included in the first – sad
First, when you use information from a source, you attribute it to that source. “Google” is not a source. Forbes magazine is.
Second, when you take language verbatim from a source, you set it off with quotation marks and then indicate the source (or at a minimum, state that it’s from a source other than you). You certainly don’t just paste it in the middle of a post to make it appear as if it flows naturally from whatever you bookend it with.
This is an Internet comment thread, you don’t need to follow the MLA stylebook or anything. But you should know and follow the most basic rules about writing. Again, this is middle-school (perhaps elementary school) stuff. It’s not difficult at all.
This isn’t a matter of your little fingers typing too fast. If you’re really pressed for time (which seems unlikely), you can just type “here’s something I found on the Internet” and then paste the text into the comment below. It takes more time to try to work the text you’ve copied into the flow of your comment than it takes to type quotation marks and paste the entire block of text.
And you claim to want civility but it is your blog
I guess one must be a leader and your lemmings will follow
And you think that calling most of Diane’s readers “lemmings” is being “civil”?
Really? You seem to have a different concept of “civility” than I do. If you write something or disagree with someone, it’s “civil discourse.” But if anyone disagrees with you, you seem to think (at least, judging from your responses) that they are not being civil.
BTW, the Disney film about the lemmings following each other over the cliff was a set-up.
“None of what was shown in the film was realistic lemming behavior, however. Disney’s White Wilderness was filmed the Canadian province of Alberta, which is not a native habitat for lemmings and is landlocked with no outlet to the sea. The filmmakers had to import lemmings to Alberta for use in the documentary (reportedly by purchasing them from Inuit children who had caught them in other provinces); through the use of carefully controlled camera angles and tight editing, the filmmakers made no more than a few dozen lemmings look like a much larger number, placing them on turntables to create a frenzied migration effect and then herding them off a cliff and into the water (which was actually the Bow River, not an Arctic sea).
Nine different photographers spent three years shooting and assembling footage for the various segments that comprise White Wilderness, and it is not known whether Walt Disney approved or was aware of the activities of James R. Simon, the principal photographer for the lemmings sequence. Certainly nature documentaries are notoriously difficult to film as wild animals are not terribly cooperative, and many nature shows and films of this era (including Disney’s “True-Life Adventure” movies and the Wild Kingdom television series) staged events to capture exciting footage for their audiences. Nonetheless, in this case what was depicted on screen was a complete fabrication, not a recreation of real animal behavior that filmmakers were unable to capture on film.
Lemmings do not periodically hurl themselves off cliffs and into the sea. Cyclical explosions in population do occasionally induce lemmings to attempt to migrate to areas of lesser population density, and when such migrations occur, some lemmings do die by falling over cliffs or drowning in lakes or rivers. These deaths are neither acts of “suicide” nor the result of compulsive unreasoning behavior, however; they’re accidental deaths resulting from lemmings’ venturing into unfamiliar territories and being crowded and pushed over dangerous ledges or venturing into the water in a quest to reach new territory.”
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp