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.
It strikes my curiosity because I work with the board in my daughters' school district while trying to improve the outlook of kids coming from lower socioeconomic conditions and even higher ones. So I'm trying to find a balance when offering educated and well thought out advice to keep resources on a level playing field for children regardless of their background. That can be difficult as you know but not impossible with hard work from adults in the communities. We have a good school district but between higher and lower socioeconomic communities.
There are students from other communities that enroll in the district. Our district is between Ann Arbor and Detroit. Ann Arbor is a higher affluent district while Detroit is a lower district that has a variety of programs that serve underprivileged kids.
While I don't consider myself an educator by profession, I try to understand different aspect of the challenges that face the community so I can contribute my time to making it better.
It strikes my curiosity because I work with the board in my daughters' school district while trying to improve the outlook of kids coming from lower socioeconomic conditions and even higher ones. So I'm trying to find a balance when offering educated and well thought out advice to keep resources on a level playing field for children regardless of their background. That can be difficult as you know but not impossible with hard work from adults in the communities. We have a good school district but between higher and lower socioeconomic communities.
There are students from other communities that enroll in the district. Our district is between Ann Arbor and Detroit. Ann Arbor is a higher affluent district while Detroit is a lower district that has a variety of programs that serve underprivileged kids.
While I don't consider myself an educator by profession, I try to understand different aspect of the challenges that face the community so I can contribute my time to making it better.
It strikes my curiosity because I work with the board in my daughters' school district while trying to improve the outlook of kids coming from lower socioeconomic conditions and even higher ones. So I'm trying to find a balance when offering educated and well thought out advice to keep resources on a level playing field for children regardless of their background. That can be difficult as you know but not impossible with hard work from adults in the communities. We have a good school district but between higher and lower socioeconomic communities.
There are students from other communities that enroll in the district. Our district is between Ann Arbor and Detroit. Ann Arbor is a higher affluent district while Detroit is a lower district that has a variety of programs that serve underprivileged kids.
While I don't consider myself an educator by profession, I try to understand different aspect of the challenges that face the community so I can contribute my time to making it better.
I don't have the answers for you. As I understand it, getting kids into preschool is a big help.
One other thought, be on the lookout for the district to "self-advocate" for kids that might not have the best background? Those parents that have the knowledge, time, and resources to figure out what to ask for as far as services, accommodations, etc, are a step ahead of the game.
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.
A liberal arts degree from a top university or top small liberal arts college teaches critical thought. That is a valuable and sought-after skill that generally isn't taught at a 3rd tier state school where the typical student is poorly prepared and can't handle rigorous academic material. There are a ton of highly paid and extremely talented people walking around who did liberal arts as their undergrad at a strong school. Like pretty much everybody who goes to Medical School and Law School. Most people who land in top PhD programs. A lot of people who land in the top B Schools. Where you do your undergrad matters.
You also have your "taxachusetts" facts totally wrong. Massachusetts is middle of the road for tax burden. The tax burden is only high inside the I-495 belt where all those people from ivory tower colleges make big income and bid up property prices to the point where property taxes on those million dollar homes are high. With a 5.10% flat income tax and Proposition 2 1/2 limiting property tax rates, it's a bargain compared to pretty much any other high cost of living state if you make real money.
I don't have the answers for you. As I understand it, getting kids into preschool is a big help.
One other thought, be on the lookout for the district to "self-advocate" for kids that might not have the best background? Those parents that have the knowledge, time, and resources to figure out what to ask for as far as services, accommodations, etc, are a step ahead of the game.
The engaged parents do it themselves rather than relying on some public school. They don't park their children in front of the television and video game console. They read to their children and do whatever they can to provide an enriched environment. It's all about an environment that fosters intellectual curiosity and values learning. By the time a child gets to a preschool program, it's too late.
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.
I think in this correlation means it's actually a confounding variable. And it's over emphasized because it justifies more funding for schools. I'm also in one of those states that you list, but with a local school that has historically produced outcomes well above the expected for a semi rural area. This school is a very good case study in the two groups mentioned previously -- the A group that places value on education and the B group that doesn't because that's what the student population consists of. Due to the presence of a large government lab, there is a disproportionate number of highly educated scientists, engineers, and craft workforce in the area. And a remaining student body from the classic lower income group. Kids from both groups attend the same elementary, middle, and high school side by side.
School funding per pupil is the same since they are in the same school, though there is a bit more spent on the lower group to pull them along. In fact it seems the school system goes out of it's way to assume the group A kids will do fine on their own and that the school needs to expend extra resources to drag the group B kids kicking and screaming through the system.
The outcome is the group A kids who have parents who care about education do well and go to college or tech school and move on to good jobs. The group B kids are drug through the system with minimal grades, and then get pushed into college or trade school where they languish for several years before becoming another six year statistic. And the state is putting even more money into dragging these kids through CC free and so far, other than some made-for-TV success stories, the primary outcome of that program has been to pull more of the group A kids into CC for two years before they head to college but not a huge dent in the final results for group B.
More than money or any other single thing, having parents who actually give a rat's behind is what makes the difference.
I think in this correlation means it's actually a confounding variable. And it's over emphasized because it justifies more funding for schools. I'm also in one of those states that you list, but with a local school that has historically produced outcomes well above the expected for a semi rural area. This school is a very good case study in the two groups mentioned previously -- the A group that places value on education and the B group that doesn't because that's what the student population consists of. Due to the presence of a large government lab, there is a disproportionate number of highly educated scientists, engineers, and craft workforce in the area. And a remaining student body from the classic lower income group. Kids from both groups attend the same elementary, middle, and high school side by side.
School funding per pupil is the same since they are in the same school, though there is a bit more spent on the lower group to pull them along. In fact it seems the school system goes out of it's way to assume the group A kids will do fine on their own and that the school needs to expend extra resources to drag the group B kids kicking and screaming through the system.
The outcome is the group A kids who have parents who care about education do well and go to college or tech school and move on to good jobs. The group B kids are drug through the system with minimal grades, and then get pushed into college or trade school where they languish for several years before becoming another six year statistic. And the state is putting even more money into dragging these kids through CC free and so far, other than some made-for-TV success stories, the primary outcome of that program has been to pull more of the group A kids into CC for two years before they head to college but not a huge dent in the final results for group B.
More than money or any other single thing, having parents who actually give a rat's behind is what makes the difference.
Yes, those parents always think that. And, of course, it is one factor.
The Northeast of the UsA has 600 plus years of history?? The west has 200 plus years and almost went Russian or Jesuit. It's worse where I am: 150 years of history, during which time Provincial leaders were largely drunk. Up until just a few decades ago my sons' alma mater was the ONLY University, in an expensive area. All others in the hinterlands were just outta luck and on their own. (Especially First Nations, loggers, ranchers).The "Elites" virtually ALL lived just down the road from the school.
That helps the self fulfilling prophecy.
Then again, look at the Mormon belt between Idaho running all the way down to northern Arizona and Nevada. LADEN with colleges and Universities, subsidized apts., and a culture with deep, deep respect for non-secular education. If your own culture respects education a lot of good things will naturally follow.
It strikes my curiosity because I work with the board in my daughters' school district while trying to improve the outlook of kids coming from lower socioeconomic conditions and even higher ones. So I'm trying to find a balance when offering educated and well thought out advice to keep resources on a level playing field for children regardless of their background. That can be difficult as you know but not impossible with hard work from adults in the communities. We have a good school district but between higher and lower socioeconomic communities.
There are students from other communities that enroll in the district. Our district is between Ann Arbor and Detroit. Ann Arbor is a higher affluent district while Detroit is a lower district that has a variety of programs that serve underprivileged kids.
While I don't consider myself an educator by profession, I try to understand different aspect of the challenges that face the community so I can contribute my time to making it better.
The critical resource that causes disparity is called Mom & Dad.
Even if the US developed a basic income for all people, there is no way to enforce wise spending priorities, or to mandate parents pay attention to their kids and help them with homework.
The only way you can ever offer all kids the same fair chance would be for the State to take all kids at birth and raise them in state hopes with approved equal caregivers. Even then it probably would not work because some caregivers would be better than others, there woudl be some corruption etc.
Frankly there is nothing that can be done. We cannot make things fair for all kids or give all kids an equal chance by government, taxation, income adjustments, or any other means. Johnny, the son of a prostitute crack addict is simply not going to have the same opportunities as Richie, the son of Dr. and Mr Rich. It does not matter what the schools or the government does. Johnny will already be messed up by the time he starts school. He will not have anyone encouraging him to do homework or helping him with it, he will be trying to figure out how to eat something. Johnny might make it out of the cycle and Richie may fall into poverty, substance abuse or whatever, but the cards are and always will be stacked against Johnny and in favor of Richie.
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.