Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, since you don't have any kids, you don't see squat--no matter how many class warriors validate you. Since what you know about parenting and school districts can fit inside a smallish thimble, allow me to clear matters up for you.
School districts mean a great deal. Anybody who tells me that there's no correlation between school system and preparation for higher education is smoking crack. In my own metro area, all you have to do is look at the varying percentages for graduating classes needing remediation upon entering college, i.e., remedial classes in math, English, etc.
In some school systems in my metro, the remediation rate for graduating seniors entering college is north of 60%. In the school system where my children attend, it's around 3%. Care to tell me that there isn't a difference in the education a child receives in the two school system? I'll say that you're full of baloney.
And hell yes it's a class thing, but not for the reasons you think. Upper income classes in this country are largely that way for a reason, not that way by coincidence. They are that way because the parents have likely valued education in their own lives and entered careers where education is important. They likely are heavy readers and regard education as a lifelong process, rather than something to do for twelve years of one's life and then forget for the remaining sixty. That means they place a great deal of emphasis on education for their own children, and back up that commitment by attending parent-teacher night, dashing off e-mails to a teacher to learn why a kid's grades have begun to sag, and actively seek additional help when needed. Compare that to a blue-collar or working-class neighborhood where education ends at age 16 or 18, and it ought to be clear: It's not about differences in income level--it's about differences in culture and what each culture values.
Further, the classroom experience is markedly different. Whereas an inner-city school not only has to deal with a far less involved group of parents, it also has to devote far more of its time dealing with the social dysfunction of its student body's families. Ask any inner-city school teacher about the glorified social work that takes up so much of the day, time that simply can not be devoted to teaching the core curriculum.
What's more, parents in better school districts are not only more involved in their children's education, but they back it up with their wallets, voluntarily shouldering higher property tax rates to pay for better teachers, better facilities, and better programs.
So tell you what. When you actually start spawning kids, why don't you check in with us and tell us how your putting your theory to practice? Tell us how much you're enjoying your kids being enrolled in an inner city school district and what a fabulous education they're getting. Because until you've actually put your money where your mouth is, I'm not sure how you have the right to judge the motivations of others.
First, I'll lay my cards on the table. I am NOT one of these people who thinks that one should be willing to drive 50+ miles to work, overextend themselves financially, etc, to put their kids in the "best" school district in their town.
There is a straight line correlation between school test scores and parental socio-economic status. The kids that score the highest in aggregate are the wealthiest kids. These kids would do well no matter where they went to school, no matter who taught them. Test scores are no indication of teacher quality or much of anything else.
Secondly, I did not think this thread was about sending one's kids to the "best" school v sending them to an inner-city school.
Regarding expenditures, many times the city school districts have higher tax rates and higher per-pupil expenditures than their suburban counterparts. How much one pays in school taxes is no indication of school quality.
Perhaps world's wealthiest and smartest region today is PaloAlto/Woodside area
Lots of younger families where fathers (tech like finance is a male-dominated industry) are products of middle-income, mediocre suburban public HS all over US but often graduated from Stanford CS undergrad or grad...or some other elite college/major
Those who choose to have kids (it's more discretionary in modern era) often send kids to public local elem schools in affluent suburbs and will opt for private HS (when appropriate age) simply for physical safety of kids vs possibly violent poor kids (public HS often include kids from the many slums adjacent to PaloAlto area)
And many in this wealthy, jaded crowd predict their kids may attend Stanford CS for a yr or so before dropping out to form/join some start-up w/smart classmates (only relevance of a great school is meeting smart, industrious classmates, not some mythical "education" from sitting amongst 100s of kids in some big auditorium as some grad TA orally reads out stuff, kids take notes and later memorize nonsense for a silly exam, much like 100yrs ago)...the irrelevance and downright mockery of "formal", overpriced education is rather apparent in jaded, leading edge places like PaloAlto/Woodside, where engineers tend to analyze what are one's job-relevant skills/creativity, rather than blindly accepting "brand" cachet of any diploma or alleged "education" or miseducation
Suspect if had an academically mediocre but physically safe public school option many of this highly productive crowd are rational enough not to opt for some $40K/yr/kid pvt school; much more useful to hand the $40K/yr to the kid and educate them about investing, companies and the macroeconomy via hands-on stock investing, not throwing the money away on an inefficient, archaic, yet "formal" education
Many smart, moneyed engineers of modern era view any school (even elite engineering colleges) as a mere union card for entry to one's first elite employer
Kids of alums of such elite colleges have a natural legacy/financial advantage in gaining entry to such colleges, no matter one's HS
And any smart, industrious kid, no matter one's father's successes/failures, can acquire enough knowledge/skills/college credits, etc while in HS (esp in an online/Kindle/khanacademy, etc world) to enter such "easier-admit" colleges/majors like Berkeley CS or IL CS or CMU CS or MI CS, etc where many of SiliconValley's wealthiest misfits themselves attended college, perhaps as back-ups/safety choices when the "curious" lib arts-biased admissions office at Stanford turned them away for lack of enough "well-rounded" quals or community svc or affirm action ineligibilty, etc etc....the engineers have never gotten along well with the admissions office/lib arts/aff action/HR/sales&mkg crowd....some things never change...
Neither tech nor finance is so completely male dominated as you post. IT is big here, and there are many females in the field. In addition, I know a number of females in finance.
Just what are you saying that Berkeley, Stanford, Illinois, Michigan and CMU are "easy admit" schools? Since when? These schools are highly competitive and highly rated.
And what is this business about "mediocre suburban high schools"?
Yes this is true, there are absolutely no facts in the example just an opinion. What is fact, is that my neighbors' kids is going on a science scholarship to USC and definitely did not go to the best school district but a very good school within a slightly above average district. I'd be more curious to hear about her classmates however to give a more colorful rendition of what those graduates have planned.
As far as teachers go, great. I am glad you confirmed in fact, what I was unsure of with regard to teacher placement. I'll take your word for it.
As far as housing I never said all of California. I said San Diego.
The irony is that for the folks I know that had opinions not dissimilar to your posts in regards to schools and "being" upper middle class, the current economy and real estate bubble illustrated how fragile some of these folks really were when they lost their jobs or their loans reset.
Obviously these former and current colleagues made some poor financial decisions which they are ashamed of even mentioning. They are apparently having to answer to their kids why they are having to move from their big homes to apartments. At the moment, when I see them occasionally in passing, are having to scale down their lifestyles.
Last edited by shmoov_groovzsd; 07-18-2011 at 10:15 PM..
First, I'll lay my cards on the table. I am NOT one of these people who thinks that one should be willing to drive 50+ miles to work, overextend themselves financially, etc, to put their kids in the "best" school district in their town.
There is a straight line correlation between school test scores and parental socio-economic status. The kids that score the highest in aggregate are the wealthiest kids. These kids would do well no matter where they went to school, no matter who taught them. Test scores are no indication of teacher quality or much of anything else.
Secondly, I did not think this thread was about sending one's kids to the "best" school v sending them to an inner-city school.
Regarding expenditures, many times the city school districts have higher tax rates and higher per-pupil expenditures than their suburban counterparts. How much one pays in school taxes is no indication of school quality.
Katiana,
Thanks for you insight in regards to school quality. I think you make a really great point as well StarlaJane, another poster here. This to me seems crucial in the equation.
Yes you are correct, my question in the OP had absolutely nothing to do with inner city schools.
Why? This assumes the higher classes have anything to learn from the working-class, but they don't. The working-class need to learn from and emulate the higher classes, but this isn't going to happen to a kid unless he/she is almost entirely removed from the corrosive influence of his/her working-class upbringing. Creating a "mixed environment" will just result in the students separating themselves into socioeconomic groups.
If acknowledging reality makes me elitist so be it...
Seriously, *higher* classes are not necessarily higher. It has been my experience that every class has people who I want to learn from and people I do not want to learn from.
The folks who take advantage of others in the corporate culture are not people to emulate. Some of the wealthy teach their children that it does not matter what kind of person you are, only what kind of person people *think* you are.
People in poverty value people rather than possessions. Wealthy folks and even middle class folks could learn something from that. Wealthy and middle class folks are future oriented while those in poverty are present oriented. Imo, there really needs to be a mix of these two orientations. Poor folks need to focus more on the future, but others need to focus on enjoying the present more. Middle class people could teach the wealthy about focusing on work and achievement rather than on legacy. They could help the poor with this as well. Wealthy folks have an international world view which all of us could learn from. Often the rich are much lonelier because they focus on using people rather than valuing them. The poor have this one right.
It seems to me that you are idolizing the wealthy without seeing that they have faults too. Just because they have money does NOT mean that their values are the best ones to adopt.
People in poverty value people rather than possessions. Wealthy folks and even middle class folks could learn something from that. Wealthy and middle class folks are future oriented while those in poverty are present oriented. Imo, there really needs to be a mix of these two orientations. Poor folks need to focus more on the future, but others need to focus on enjoying the present more. Middle class people could teach the wealthy about focusing on work and achievement rather than on legacy. They could help the poor with this as well. Wealthy folks have an international world view which all of us could learn from. Often the rich are much lonelier because they focus on using people rather than valuing them. The poor have this one right.
Seriously, *higher* classes are not necessarily higher. It has been my experience that every class has people who I want to learn from and people I do not want to learn from.
When I say "higher classes", I mean socioeconomic classes that are above the working-class, I don't mean "higher" in any other sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053
The folks who take advantage of others in the corporate culture are not people to emulate.
Umm...okay? I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything, are you trying to imply that managers, executives, etc all "take advantage of others"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053
People in poverty value people rather than possessions. Wealthy folks and even middle class folks could learn something from that. Wealthy and middle class folks are future oriented while those in poverty are present oriented.
This is hogwash, the things the higher classes value most are personal relationships and life experiences. You have a made for TV idea of what the higher classes are like, I doubt you know any of these people. The middle-class can be a bit obsessed with possessions, they are trying to emulate the outwardly aspects of the social classes above them.
People in poverty are too busy worrying about how they are going to pay their bills to really enjoy life, this group is the most miserably by any metric. Not because they are intrinsically miserably, but rather their economic conditions don't allow them to truly enjoy their life. But the majority of the working-class isn't in poverty.
Regardless, primary issue here is not wealth, its culture. The working-class are mundane and have a corrosive way of thinking about the world, it permeates their entire world-view. What is their to learn? Nothing. The best thing society can do is grab up talented kids from working-class communities and get them the heck out of it.
Not all school systems are the same. I grew up in Massachusetts at a time where the "bad" schools systems would be considered "good" in many areas of the country. My adult children also received their public education in the area and it was the same thing.
Then I moved to Florida. That's when I realized I had no idea what a "bad" school really is. It's the same thing in Tennessee. In some of the larger towns and cities the schools are good to great, but in very small towns the educational systems are lacking.
A few years ago they had a young lady on Oprah that was flunking out of her freshman year at the state university. She was valedictorian of her high school senior class.
Allegedly, due to testing things are suppose to change, but there are a lot of fudging of numbers.
Here, in Tennessee, they've raised the bar after winning The Race to the Top, but I'm sure there are school systems across the country that are falling through the cracks.
Interesting observation about parents on City-Data, though. I've found it to be the opposite although it could be the state forums that I frequent.
The Florida one seems to have an enormous issue with people yearning for the beach but barely or not inquiring about schools. Often, it is because the people come from a good school system and assume it is the same throughout the country. But not always. I remember one woman declaring Arizona to have the worst schools in the country so anything would be better. I don't know if that is true or not but that's not the point. If it were me I would want to head to an excellent school system and not to one that is one step above worst in the nation.
Not all school systems are the same. I grew up in Massachusetts at a time where the "bad" schools systems would be considered "good" in many areas of the country. My adult children also received their public education in the area and it was the same thing.
Then I moved to Florida. That's when I realized I had no idea what a "bad" school really is. It's the same thing in Tennessee. In some of the larger towns and cities the schools are good to great, but in very small towns the educational systems are lacking.
A few years ago they had a young lady on Oprah that was flunking out of her freshman year at the state university. She was valedictorian of her high school senior class.
Allegedly, due to testing things are suppose to change, but there are a lot of fudging of numbers.
Here, in Tennessee, they've raised the bar after winning The Race to the Top, but I'm sure there are school systems across the country that are falling through the cracks.
Interesting observation about parents on City-Data, though. I've found it to be the opposite although it could be the state forums that I frequent.
The Florida one seems to have an enormous issue with people yearning for the beach but barely or not inquiring about schools. Often, it is because the people come from a good school system and assume it is the same throughout the country. But not always. I remember one woman declaring Arizona to have the worst schools in the country so anything would be better. I don't know if that is true or not but that's not the point. If it were me I would want to head to an excellent school system and not to one that is one step above worst in the nation.
hiknapster,
Very clever observation. I can see your point totally making sense in regards to state and regional performance.
It is no surprise that very good schools garner national accolades for student achievement. There are also some schools that I have seen in the news that get recognized for being diamonds in the rough. However those are few and far between.
Going back to another post from user_id, this seems to make sense. All school classes are may not necessarily be treated equally based on your experience.
Where I see this making sense is in High School. Not necessarily the lower grades.
I suppose the way I viewed it was, when it comes to hard sciences or math at a certain level, how many ways can you spin an equation? To my knowledge, there are only a handful of text book publishers in the US. Schools typically pick and choose which chapters are best for the curriculum. Regardless of school district, mathematics (the subject) itself never changes when learning the fundamentals going all the way through to Calculus when theories start being applied.
Not all school systems are the same. I grew up in Massachusetts at a time where the "bad" schools systems would be considered "good" in many areas of the country. My adult children also received their public education in the area and it was the same thing.
Then I moved to Florida. That's when I realized I had no idea what a "bad" school really is. It's the same thing in Tennessee. In some of the larger towns and cities the schools are good to great, but in very small towns the educational systems are lacking.
A few years ago they had a young lady on Oprah that was flunking out of her freshman year at the state university. She was valedictorian of her high school senior class.
Allegedly, due to testing things are suppose to change, but there are a lot of fudging of numbers.
Here, in Tennessee, they've raised the bar after winning The Race to the Top, but I'm sure there are school systems across the country that are falling through the cracks.
Interesting observation about parents on City-Data, though. I've found it to be the opposite although it could be the state forums that I frequent.
The Florida one seems to have an enormous issue with people yearning for the beach but barely or not inquiring about schools. Often, it is because the people come from a good school system and assume it is the same throughout the country. But not always. I remember one woman declaring Arizona to have the worst schools in the country so anything would be better. I don't know if that is true or not but that's not the point. If it were me I would want to head to an excellent school system and not to one that is one step above worst in the nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shmoov_groovzsd
hiknapster,
Very clever observation. I can see your point totally making sense in regards to state and regional performance.
It is no surprise that very good schools garner national accolades for student achievement. There are also some schools that I have seen in the news that get recognized for being diamonds in the rough. However those are few and far between.
Going back to another post from user_id, this seems to make sense. All school classes are may not necessarily be treated equally based on your experience.
Where I see this making sense is in High School. Not necessarily the lower grades.
I suppose the way I viewed it was, when it comes to hard sciences or math at a certain level, how many ways can you spin an equation? To my knowledge, there are only a handful of text book publishers in the US. Schools typically pick and choose which chapters are best for the curriculum. Regardless of school district, mathematics (the subject) itself never changes when learning the fundamentals going all the way through to Calculus when theories start being applied.
The problem with the view that this only makes sense in high school is that when incorrect information is taught at the elementary school level, high school teachers must spend time deprograming the kids from that incorrect information.
Mathematics as a subject stays the same, but... I have had kids who learned things that are mathematically incorrect who had a lot of trouble with algebra and geometry in high school. It's often not a matter of doing the calculations, but of having learned by rote and not being able to problem solve or think mathematically. Communicating is important in math and in the poorer schools this is neglected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
