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.
Fantastic thread all..... I've been maintaining this position for years... "It ain't the teachers, its demographics."
I would love for some state to "prove" this. I would love to see a top district move their kids to the worst school in the area, move the kids from the worst school to the "best" school, keeping the teachers/administration the same and see what happens. I will be a lot of money that the "best" school will now be the worst in one year.
I would love for some state to "prove" this. I would love to see a top district move their kids to the worst school in the area, move the kids from the worst school to the "best" school, keeping the teachers/administration the same and see what happens. I will be a lot of money that the "best" school will now be the worst in one year.
I also think it would decline drastically but not to the "worst" status. Too much money in the "best" school and the shock factor of being in a new school, new expectation, etc, would probably make some portion of students work harder.
The same "shock" factor would probably make a similar portion of the "best" kids work harder as well, raising their scores a bit too. Interesting idea all the way around.
I also think it would decline drastically but not to the "worst" status. Too much money in the "best" school and the shock factor of being in a new school, new expectation, etc, would probably make some portion of students work harder.
The same "shock" factor would probably make a similar portion of the "best" kids work harder as well, raising their scores a bit too. Interesting idea all the way around.
Looking at the per pupil spending in our worst districts compared to our top districts in this state, I would say the opposite is true-the worst districts have a LOT more money for their students. I still think that the kids in the worst schools still won't care about doing well no matter what building they are in.
Looking at the per pupil spending in our worst districts compared to our top districts in this state, I would say the opposite is true-the worst districts have a LOT more money for their students. I still think that the kids in the worst schools still won't care about doing well no matter what building they are in.
I would agree that many of them won't. I won't go so far as to even say most. Especially not the younger kids, high school maybe a different story.
I taught for one year in an Abbot district here, in middle school. Even early middle school aged most of the kids still "liked" school. They wanted to do well, they tried, etc. But within two years we had lost them. I am not sure why that happens but they did not come in that way. It confounds me to this day.
I make the same hourly wage as when I taught. And I was at the top of the pay scale. But now my salary is not based on a 184 day contract. I work 2080 hours a year, get 8 hours of AL a pay period. So, yes, I "make more", but I work more too.
I make the same hourly wage as when I taught. And I was at the top of the pay scale. But now my salary is not based on a 184 day contract. I work 2080 hours a year, get 8 hours of AL a pay period. So, yes, I "make more", but I work more too.
What is AL ?
Just curious, 2080 hours works out to be 40 hours a week for 52 weeks of the year. Are you claiming you have NO time off?
Looking at the per pupil spending in our worst districts compared to our top districts in this state, I would say the opposite is true-the worst districts have a LOT more money for their students. I still think that the kids in the worst schools still won't care about doing well no matter what building they are in.
This is one of, perhaps THE, biggest issues in education. Our students don't have a vested interest in their own educations. It's someone elses responsibility to make sure they learn and they just don't care. In my lower level chem classes, I have 6-8 kids who just don't care in each class. They disrupt learning for everyone else. IMO, that should not be tolerated.
I would love for some state to "prove" this. I would love to see a top district move their kids to the worst school in the area, move the kids from the worst school to the "best" school, keeping the teachers/administration the same and see what happens. I will be a lot of money that the "best" school will now be the worst in one year.
Not always but usually
Do a Trading Places thing? Do we think a group of kindergartners taken from an elite suburb, place them in the inner city (to live) and let them go to school there for 13 years and they would all be valedictorians or even 75% college bound?
Do a Trading Places thing? Do we think a group of kindergartners taken from an elite suburb, place them in the inner city (to live) and let them go to school there for 13 years and they would all be valedictorians or even 75% college bound?
Unfortunately, I agree. I see a difference just in the two levels of chemistry I teach. I'm the same teacher in both classes, we use the same lab, we have the same resources...what's the difference? The students. I spend my time in my lower level chemistry classes dealing with disruptions. There's a lot less learning going on.
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.
