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.
This thread is kind of nonsense. Top school systems are in towns where everyone is an affluent college educated professional. People self-segregate along socioeconomic lines. It’s engaged parents that make the top school system, not money, not teachers. You’re going to have similar outcomes in any town like that. Weston, Ma. Greenwich, Ct. The Main Line Philly suburbs. The affluent DC suburbs. Brentwood, Tn south of Nashville. Palo Alto.
Some states do better at educating their poor people. The outcomes are still far below what you see in an affluent suburban professional bedroom town but it at least gives those children a shot. Vermont has their Act 68 state school property tax. Massachusetts dumps a ton of money into the failed city school systems and funds a bunch of regional vocational-technical schools. If you’re poor in a red state, you don’t have access to much in the way of special ed since it’s only the Federal money and pretty much everyone in a poor school district has special needs. Money helps a bit but it’s tough to recover from poor parenting.
^^This.^^
As a comparison, it doesn't tell us much to compare on the state level when you have wildly different demographics in different states.
Take Illinois: Much of the Northwest suburbs have an educated, affluent population. But there are some really bad schools there too, and not only in Chicago.
North Dakota or Iowa are probably as close to a "perfect model" where one school is unlikely to be much different than another anywhere in the state.
If a preponderance of kids of educated parents that place a value on education and achievement skew the results, it isn't very telling.
Show me the states that are most likely to have a kids enrolled in F&RL Programs complete college or some kind of post secondary education that earns them a living.
If any school is in an area where parents care, the schools tend to reflect that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForLoveOnly
Why do you think this?
Its not rocket science, is it?
Family A makes sure the kids are doing their homework every night. They go to parent teacher conferences and if the kid starts to struggle somewhere, are proactive in addressing it, whether through the school, private tutoring or extra help at the dinner table every night. If the kid becomes a behavior problem at the school the parents are quick to remedy it. As the kid grows up, there is never any question of "will he go to college?" The expectation is that he goes and graduates with a useful degree. His academic choices reflect that through middle and high school, maybe electing some AP classes, etc.
Family B, maybe the parents work a lot, maybe they just don't care, maybe they have real problems in their lives (drugs, unstable lives, etc...) Mom sits them in front of the TV, doesn't pay much attention to their school work, parents really don't have tons of time or energy to follow up on all that. Class choice, future direction isn't "actively managed" or directed. The kid's expected to start helping out with younger siblings, etc..."What are you gonna do after graduation? Idk..."
Family A is much more likely to hold the Teacher, Principles, administration accountable and take a proactive role in what's going on. They're less likely to say, "oh," and go about their day if they hear of shenanigans going on during class...
Now, if a School is 75% students that come from Families like "Family A," compared to 75% of families like family B, you see how these things can have way more effect than what a school spends per pupil...
As a comparison, it doesn't tell us much to compare on the state level when you have wildly different demographics in different states.
Take Illinois: Much of the Northwest suburbs have an educated, affluent population. But there are some really bad schools there too, and not only in Chicago.
North Dakota or Iowa are probably as close to a "perfect model" where one school is unlikely to be much different than another anywhere in the state.
If a preponderance of kids of educated parents that place a value on education and achievement skew the results, it isn't very telling.
Show me the states that are most likely to have a kids enrolled in F&RL Programs complete college or some kind of post secondary education that earns them a living.
Well, being that you're from one of the 5 "least educated states", you might look here (https://wallethub.com/edu/most-educated-states/31075/) and see that there's a fair correlation between states that spend the most money per student and are the most educated.
And, among the states with the highest percentage of students on free and reduced lunch (those above the national norm) are 11 southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
in taxachusetts, education is the biggest industry. it is part of the culture... similar to bragging about fancy clothes or cars, some persons try to be keeping up with the joneses by measuring themselves against who has the most useless liberal arts degrees from ivory tower colleges.
And whaddya know? It paid off. Basically the envy of other states regarding education.
Education costs tax money.
You get what you pay for. "It is part of the culture."
Must be nice to have that.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,943,649 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
Mostly agree with this, plus I think that weather has to at least be considered as a factor. What else is there to do in the NE much of the year but to stay inside and study?
Anything we want. Being outside is a 12 month of a year activity in Vermont and Massachusetts too.
It never crossed my mind regarding the weather being taken into account. I guess because many studies don't take that into account but I can see where it would be a factor.
Well, it is understood that many of these top public schools are near top Ivy League and top universities.
But with other states that have universities and community that are not considered overall wealthy and affluent like Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Iowa when compared to the affluent communities in California, Texas, Hawaii and Alaska.
Well, being that you're from one of the 5 "least educated states", you might look here (https://wallethub.com/edu/most-educated-states/31075/) and see that there's a fair correlation between states that spend the most money per student and are the most educated.
And, among the states with the highest percentage of students on free and reduced lunch (those above the national norm) are 11 southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
Correlation does not indicate causation.
Students from the affluent parts of Wake County (NC) do very well, and their schools perform at a high level, despite per-student spending being the same, teachers being paid the same, etc at any school in the district...
States with higher per-student spending really set themselves apart when it comes to kids with learning disabilities, developmental delays, etc...
The (typically developing) child of an engineer and a pharmacist is going to do well and succeed in life as long as the school isn't a total zoo.
My wife and her friends demonstrate this well; her school is ho-hum as far as ratings, a small-medium city in NC, spend is $9K roughly per student.
I grew up in a highly touted district in NW Suburbs of Chicago. Spend is $14K per student.
There were two high schools for the whole county where my wife went. The median household income of the district is $50K.
Most everyone I went to school with was from educated, achievement oriented parents. Some might call the academic environment a pressure cooker. Median family income in that district is $125K or thereabouts.
My wife's friends from her graduating class are no less successful or educated than mine. What do they have in common? Educated Professional parents, that placed an emphasis on education and achievement. The entirety of her school didn't do as well, but if you adjust for socioeconomic factors, then the pressure-cooker districts aren't as impressive.
Now, you can't be the only kids in the school that feel that way; you need a critical mass to get the schools where they have to be to cater to the high performing as well as the low performing. But there is more to it than simply throwing money at it.
It never crossed my mind regarding the weather being taken into account. I guess because many studies don't take that into account but I can see where it would be a factor.
Well, it is understood that many of these top public schools are near top Ivy League and top universities.
But with other states that have universities and community that are not considered overall wealthy and affluent like Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Iowa when compared to the affluent communities in California, Texas, Hawaii and Alaska.
You have to look at the options available to the "have-nots" in those places. Minnesota, for example, has a huge social safety new and open enrollment in their schools to a certain degree. So, a parent in a bad school district can, if they have the motivation, get their kid to a better one.
I think, but could be wrong, that Minnesota, Wisconsin, ND, while not "wealthy" in the sense of some other places, are more notably not as poor, on the whole, and at least avoid some of the vast disparities you see elsewhere.
Students from the affluent parts of Wake County (NC) do very well, and their schools perform at a high level, despite per-student spending being the same, teachers being paid the same, etc at any school in the district...
States with higher per-student spending really set themselves apart when it comes to kids with learning disabilities, developmental delays, etc...
The (typically developing) child of an engineer and a pharmacist is going to do well and succeed in life as long as the school isn't a total zoo.
My wife and her friends demonstrate this well; her school is ho-hum as far as ratings, a small-medium city in NC, spend is $9K roughly per student.
I grew up in a highly touted district in NW Suburbs of Chicago. Spend is $14K per student.
There were two high schools for the whole county where my wife went. The median household income of the district is $50K.
Most everyone I went to school with was from educated, achievement oriented parents. Some might call the academic environment a pressure cooker. Median family income in that district is $125K or thereabouts.
My wife's friends from her graduating class are no less successful or educated than mine. What do they have in common? Educated Professional parents, that placed an emphasis on education and achievement. The entirety of her school didn't do as well, but if you adjust for socioeconomic factors, then the pressure-cooker districts aren't as impressive.
Now, you can't be the only kids in the school that feel that way; you need a critical mass to get the schools where they have to be to cater to the high performing as well as the low performing. But there is more to it than simply throwing money at it.
Nor do anecdotes, for that matter.
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.
