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.
Zillow posts GreatSchool ratings for properties right on their website. GreatSchools ratings are tied to test scores, which of course correlate almost perfectly with SES. In fact, value-added also correlates closely with SES, so that's essentially worthless as well.
You are correct. But this correlation holds, basically nationwide. It's more than strong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clevelander17
Zillow posts GreatSchool ratings for properties right on their website. GreatSchools ratings are tied to test scores, which of course correlate almost perfectly with SES. In fact, value-added also correlates closely with SES, so that's essentially worthless as well.
There seems to be a lot of focus on this correlation usually with a negative connotation implied. If they are confounded, like I contend, of course they will appear strongly correlated. If we got Darwinian on this (which would not be politically correct) it follows:
a. Parents with natural intelligence and strong work ethic pass that to their children.
b1. These parents expect those kids to get an education and do well in life.
b2. Because of a, these parents do a little better economically, on average, than others.
c. Their children, because they have the natural traits, and education then also tend to do better economically. So they move up.
d. When they buy homes, they tend to move into areas with other like minded individuals, both for social reasons (commonality) and work reasons (that's where they jobs they do are located).
e. Overtime this creates a cluster of people in similar SES.
f. Being parents (a), who expect kids (b1) they push for higher performing schools and expect their kids to perform (isn't this the kind of parents teachers want?).
g. Therefore, parents (a) with similar kids, who are in similar SES, going to the same school with high expectations (f) you find the correlation between results and SES, when SES is itself a result of higher performance of the previous generation.
The problem of course is the corollary also holds that parents with weak work ethic and no expectation for education also pass that along to their kids. Which takes us into a very different discussion on various social programs and whether they alleviate or increase those core issues. But that should be a different discussion thread.
^^I have no disagreement with the above, I don't know why you're belaboring the point. The correlation is strong. You've heard that from several teachers on this board. The question was, as I understand it, does hiring good teachers make a school good? The answer, nationwide, seems to be "no".
I've long thought that myself. Most of those kids from the higher SES group would do well and learn no matter who is teaching the course.
^^I have no disagreement with the above, I don't know why you're belaboring the point. The correlation is strong. You've heard that from several teachers on this board. The question was, as I understand it, does hiring good teachers make a school good? The answer, nationwide, seems to be "no".
I've long thought that myself. Most of those kids from the higher SES group would do well and learn no matter who is teaching the course.
Maybe... and maybe not.
I work in a county system. My particular school is more suburban than rural - although a good deal of our enrollment is of a "rural" SES. Just 4 miles - as the crow flies - we find a city high school. This school - usually - beats us in most standardized scores than can be compared. Not all, and not every time. (I'm very proud our our science scores ).
This city school system pays more - much more. I could be making $14,000/yr more, if I had accepted the offered position (I stayed for personal reasons). If a system can pay this kind of money more for the very same position in a county system, logic dictates this city school will have a greater pool from which to choose when hiring. It's a common condition in similar areas that the county systems have to wait to hire new teachers in July & August, after the city systems (higher paying) do theirs in June. Using a little bit of logic shows what will happen over time.
Understand, in my neck of the woods, a "city system" isn't "city" like Detroit, DC, NY, etc. but smaller cities of populations <100K. This means that while there will be an element of lower SES enrollment, for the most part, the higher SES population is bigger. These are much more preferable than the suburban and rural systems (again, for the most part).
But when a system does have this ability to pay more (and with a higher enrollment of higher SES students), it can and will have an affect on the teacher population. As with any job out there, teachers' abilities run the entire spectrum of excellent to "you shouldn't be here". And when higher paying systems can attract a larger pool when hiring, then a natural assortment will take place.
As for making comparisons using value-added scores, understand that the better students (usually the higher SES students) usually are predicted to score higher than others, therefore usually score less growth than students predicted to score much lower. My students usually have a lower predicted score in Chemistry than most of the surrounding schools, but I can show tremendous amounts of growth because of it - and do . But I've seen schools - usually STEM or Magnet - that have much higher predicted scores than mine, but this gives the students very little, if any, room to grow.They still outscore most of their fellow students else, the schools "show no growth". Not a great way to make a comparison.
No, it is not so simple. Socioeconomic status is in reality a much bigger player than the quality of the teachers. You could take all the best teachers in a district and put them in the worst-performing school and you will not see it become the best school in the district. A bad principal can do a lot of damage in a short time, that bit is true. But basically when it comes to real estate, "good" schools are mostly about the prosperity and stability of the families sending their kids to them.
Bottom line is you still had incredible kids to work with.
Yes. I never said otherwise. But if the kids are uniformly awesome (and they are) than our increase in measures of outcome is then in all likelihood due to the principal and new teachers. So the point remains, teachers and administrators do make a measurable difference.
If it were teachers and principals alone, we would see more good schools that were only failing to be average and not failing for being below standard. The problem is the student body and how the staff adapts to them. Perhaps the average income makes the school better due to taxes or perhaps there's less at-risk students in the student body. I always hear talks of gangs but honestly if you want trouble, you'll find it whether it is drugs or gangs anyway.
Yes. I never said otherwise. But if the kids are uniformly awesome (and they are) than our increase in measures of outcome is then in all likelihood due to the principal and new teachers. So the point remains, teachers and administrators do make a measurable difference.
That being said, I'm sure "failing schools" have increases at different levels.
There is a certain amount of circular logic to it that makes it somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Since the money for education often comes from property taxes "more expensive schools" tend to be in areas with more expensive housing. So what kind of people can afford the housing?
But if there are more "poor" people than well to do ones if the Bell Curve is a same for everybody then smart kids with poor parents are being sabotaged by bad schools.
Is the socio-economic structure really based on psychological sabotage instead of genetic superiority. If it is then don't some people want to keep it that way? But couldn't cheap but powerful computers with good content blow the whole system out of the water?
psik
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.
). 
. But I've seen schools - usually STEM or Magnet - that have much higher predicted scores than mine, but this gives the students very little, if any, room to grow.They still outscore most of their fellow students else, the schools "show no growth". Not a great way to make a comparison.
