[magellan]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

Spending per pupil is a poor measurement.

Washington, DC is very high and New Hampshire is very low in spending.

They are in the opposite position in terms of achievement.

I don't think two examples = an accurate representation.

Here's an interactive map of the dropout factories, for those interested:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/intera...out/index.html

[Bydand]

Originally Posted by magellan

I don't think two examples = an accurate representation.

Here's an interactive map of the dropout factories, for those interested:

schools

Thanks for the link. I have to admit Nevada being #3 (worse to best retention rate) surprised me. The other Bottom ones didn't really come as a shock.

[sunshineann]

No "tjay" it's not just your husband.

To USSR, i will definitly have a great time in Michigan. In my opinion, there are opportunities in Michigan that are lacking where i'm at. I believe you stated that there is nothing there. It is what you make of it. Which holds true in any place you go, live, and exist in. For our family this is the right choice, and we are looking forward to it.
I believe people take one little action of another, or one town that is lacking and losing, and lump it as a whole. To me thats narrow and closed minded. You have to be willing to say "okay, this door closed, how can i make it work in other areas and open other opportunities" Everyone has their opinions, and its just that, an opinion.

[Ann_Arbor]

In my opinion, Michigan desperately needs Detroit to succeed in the long run- it needs to attract young professionals, many demand exciting urbanism/city life. e.g. Chicago.

Ask a college student or a young proffesional in another state what they think of Michigan city life and they will most always refer to Detroit (and you know the rest of the story). Unfortunately, very livable cities like A.A., G.R. and Kalamazoo are relatively unknown on the national scene.

Young people want to live in cities and associate states with them. When you think of Illinois/Chicago, NY/NYC, California/SD, SF and LA

No offense to anyone, but most college grads or young profesionals people aren't going to move to Michigan to live in suburban Detroit or a rural area.

--
sorry if this is redundant

[kimba01]

Originally Posted by Bydand

Thanks for the link. I have to admit Nevada being #3 (worse to best retention rate) surprised me. The other Bottom ones didn't really come as a shock.

Why are you surprised? Just wondering. Nevada gets the same rap as MI in such that most people think Las Vegas is Nevada. The whole Las Vegas valley is one school district, it is huge. It makes it difficult to accurately compare it to a state like MI where every city is a school district, almost. So, if you live in Henderson, and the schools are great, too bad. They are grouped in with the whole valley and there are some questionable schools in other areas. At any rate, I am going to experience this first hand as my husband was transferred to NV from MI. If it is not a good experience for my daughter, I will go back to MI to the home that I could not sell even if I wanted to. (I didn't want to)

Interesting map. Correct me if I am wrong, but "dropout factory" is the amount of students that start in 9th grade and continue through to seniors and then graduate. Is that right?

If so, when you look at the lowest states, you will see that most of those state are highly transient states right now. People moving in and out searching for a better life. They don't find it, then they move back home or somewhere else. Once again pulling those students out of a school. Plus, consider the military families in those states also.

At any rate, even "bad" school districts generate valedictorians.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by magellan

I don't think two examples = an accurate representation.

The measurement of 'spending per pupil' was proposed as a measurement of educational outcomes. All you have to do is show that the measurement doesn't correlate is to show examples that contradict the implied assumption that throwing money at education results in better outcomes. it does not.

The reason for that is that increased spending per pupil, in most districts, does not benefit the classroom. It buys administrators and overhead, not teaching. The amount of money spent on bureaucracy in the average public school system is discouragingly high.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

The measurement of 'spending per pupil' was proposed as a measurement of educational outcomes. All you have to do is show that the measurement doesn't correlate is to show examples that contradict the implied assumption that throwing money at education results in better outcomes. it does not.

The reason for that is that increased spending per pupil, in most districts, does not benefit the classroom. It buys administrators and overhead, not teaching. The amount of money spent on bureaucracy in the average public school system is discouragingly high.

All I know is when you look at our area, Grand Rapids, there is a clear distinction between the better faring schools and the amount of funding they get per pupil. The urban districts get far less than the suburban districts, and the results show it.

Besides, it is just ONE measurable that Education Week uses in their analysis. "Throw money at" gives the impression that every dollar spent on education is wasted. I have three kids in a public school and it is clearly not the case. They pinch every penny, and then some (ask us to pitch in for special events, field trips and other costs).

kimba1, what the Associated Press considers a "dropout factory" is a puublic school where the number of seniors is 60% or less the number of that class when they were freshman. For instance, in Nevada 26 of 59 total high schools earned the distinction, or 44.07%. In Michigan, 77 of 583 high schools earned that distinction, or 13.21%. You're right though, there are a ton more high schools in Michigan than Nevada (and a lot of other states if you study that interactive map). Ohio has quite a few high schools as well I notice.

I would think that in high-growth states, the numbers would increase over those 4 years. In other words, a high school in a rapidly growing area might have 400 freshman the class of 2012, and then by 2012, have at least 400 if not 500 or 600 students in the class of 2012.

[kimba01]

Yes, but if they go by the freshman still being there as seniors, the transient states would suffer statistically, right?

I mean, I know stats are just that, but I was just thinking that it is difficult to use the same criteria with so many different factors involved.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by kimba01

Yes, but if they go by the freshman still being there as seniors, the transient states would suffer statistically, right?

I mean, I know stats are just that, but I was just thinking that it is difficult to use the same criteria with so many different factors involved.

Not the "actual students", but the number of students. 400 incoming freshman, 4 years later only 240 seniors = dropout factory. But you're right, there are a lot of other factors and the AP study has been criticized by school leaders (no surprise there). I think 80% of Michigan's dropout factories were in Flint and Detroit districts. GRPS had 4 I believe.

[bumble]

I can't blame you for leaving. The south is so much better to live in. I love MI summers, but the economic situation makes me want out.