From a reader:

I love the webcast. It’s inspired cordial discussion between peers and myself on issues again, rather than complaints on the “horse races” and such. In fact, a peer in graduate school and I have lunch regularly to contrast our differing views and frame them in a “What’s your Problem?” format. To be forthright, I’m a loyal New Republic Reader and cheer for Peter most of the time. Your Op-Ed is in the St. Louis P-D, however, and have always read your column with interest. I think you represent centrist conservatism well and avoid the pitfalls of knee-jerk populism that plaques most of the conservatives around me. I had to write you in regards to your public education column, though. I think you’ve resorted to popular attacks on public education that fail to account for nuance. And while I’ll readily concede that I can offer no alternative to the status quo (as sad as it makes this liberal), I think that erasing public education will have social repercussions that you’ve failed to mention.
I’m an organizational psychologist (doctoral candidate) by trade. As such, we share many theories and research lines with educational psychology, particularly when it comes to measurement. The numbers you use and statistics you cite are subject to numerous nuances such as frog-pond effects, test reaction theory, and obvious economic variables. (Obviously, talk of expensive DC schools has to mention that DC is a really expensive place to live without the urban advantages that say, New York has, right? The money spent per student doesn’t go as far.)
And I can point you to several sources to document that your Comprehensive Achievement Test, or what ever cognitive ability measure we use, is not gauging the same thing when we use it between cultures. The effect isn’t as strong as say the differences between the US and Chinese culture, but the same variable is not represented when paper-pencil CAT tests are administered to blacks and whites. So districts like DC where the public schools are so highly African-American, have numbers that are still statistically lower, but also represent something that isn’t directly comparable to predominantly white schools. See in business and science we know this, that’s why we change our assessments for job applicants to be more job-related and relevant to the examinees, instead of using cheaper more reactive paper-pencil test that provide messier measurement through strong reactions of perceived fairness. I’m not saying anything about tests being fair, but when they’re not perceived as fair, they don’t measure the same thing as those who perceive them as fair. That’s reality of it. But when we enter this nuance into the public education realm, I find that conservatives like yourself start yelling about PC propaganda and liberal guilt. Apples and oranges comparisons aren’t about PC, they’re about sound practice.
But I didn’t write just to numbers knock you. What about the theory that any education, even if it’s not very good, influences things like crime and public health? DC probably doesn’t rate very well in those either, but do you think it would get worse or better if poor people were just mandated rather than provided a minimal standard of education? You say better, I say worse. I think the lower end of the distribution would suffer and would act as a greater burden on society in the form of high crime and a lack of basic skills that influence infant mortality rates and the like (even more so than they already do). That’s not suggesting throwing more money at the problem. It’s just recognizing that letting the market guide things, would result in what Joseph Stiglitz argues is a discrepancy in information economics. The poor would have less information and make worse decisions. Mean levels might increase when isolated, but indirect strains to those that benefit would still be acting. Why not spend it up front, and improve the lives of the poor at the same time?
But alas, as my friend points out, what to do then? Don’t I want education to get better? Of course I do, but I’m just not ready to gamble with the bottom end of public distribution. Such a move would create greater discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots (okay, that cliche may be too liberal-speak even for me). But convince me that the market really will prevent this from happening, and I’d be more willing to join your conservative quest against the status quo (always seems like such an oxymoron). For example, open markets would probably be better at adjusting to different testing methods like we do in business. But would those new methods still correct the poor choices that the poor would continue to make as information economics has highlighted?
Thanks for your debates with Peter. I’d love to here you discuss your Problem with public ed in your webcast. It would supplement public discourse that needs to be aired. And thanks if you read this whole e-mail!