Study: Mpls. Can't Even Graduate Half Its Students (Minneapolis: student loans, find a job)

[MNNative]

Isn't Mpls quite different than suburbs? Is it truly fair to compare them? You won't find the same ratio/percentage of children coming from low-income to middle-class families in Eagan or Wayzata or Edina as you would Mpls, would you? I just wonder if the numbers are skewed because of the demographics and like was mentioned, the attitudes of certain families and the emphasis that is put on a good education. Is it right to blame a district who does care about serving children and families just because they were dealt the cards they hold? From what I've read, they're trying to make the best out of it. What about the families who do prosper in inner city schools? Sure, 67%, but (and I'll admit I don't have the numbers or the math, this is just an assumption) maybe out of all the kids enrolled only 67% come from backgrounds that would encourage their kids to succeed and therefore it's closer to 100% graduation rate. (Am I making sense?) I wonder if 67% isn't a big deal compared with other large cities.

[golfgal]

That study compared Minneapolis to other big cities. Minneapolis ranked 48th out of 50, pretty sad. Ok, so Minneapolis says it has improved--maybe yes, maybe they just changed the way they calculated the graduation rate but taking the number of kids that start 12th grade vs the number of kids that finish 12 grade vs the number of kids that start 9th grade compared to the number of kids that finish 12th grade?

As for comparing the suburbs, the argument here is that the Minneapolis schools are just as good as the suburban schools and I disagree. No, you don't the lower income students and you don't get the kids that come from families that just don't care, etc. What difference does that make, lets say you are at work and the person in the cube to your right and the cube to your left really don't want to be there, the spend their day talking back and forth over your cube, playing games on the computer, text messaging their friends, etc. How productive would you be at work? Not very right?

Translate that to the classroom where the teacher has to spend a significant amount of time disciplining kids that don't want to be there at the expense of those kids that DO want to be there. It takes away instruction time, reduces the ability for the kids that want to learn to learn. This is what makes the suburban schools better then the Minneapolis schools. Yes, there are discipline problems in the suburban schools but they are the exception rather then the rule and quite frankly, the suburban schools have more pull to get problems solved because they also usually get some support at home.

The teachers in the Minneapolis schools are NOT the problem here, it is the families that attend the schools that are the problem. Would you rather go to school or work in an environment that is supportive of you doing well or one where you have to really struggle to do well ?

[MNNative]

Originally Posted by golfgal

That study compared Minneapolis to other big cities.

Which study?

Thanks for pointing out the 48 out of 50, that is low! I am definitely not suggesting that Mpls is as good as the suburbs, just that it might not be the worst option. <~Maybe it is though. Comparing suburbs to inner city schools seems kind of like comparing apples to oranges, to me. Maybe it's not. (I read through a rating for districts and found Richfield ranked worse than Mpls. I graduated from Richfield in 2002 and don't harbor TOO many negative opinions--wouldn't send my kids there, though--so this is primarily where my skepticism comes from in regards to how districts are rated or their reputations.)

I completely agree with your statements, that's exactly the environment we don't want our children learning in. We totally believe in the power of association and want to surround our kids with encouraging influences (I know, I know, we can't shelter them and yes, we do encourage diversity).

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Simple Living

Study: Mpls. Can't Even Graduate Half Its Students

CBS News Interactive: Education In America

WASHINGTON (AP) ― Seventeen of the nation's 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates lower than 50 percent, with the lowest graduation rates reported in Detroit, Indianapolis and Cleveland, according to a report released Tuesday.

The report, issued by America's Promise Alliance, found that about half of the students served by public school systems in the nation's largest cities receive diplomas. Students in suburban and rural public high schools were more likely to graduate than their counterparts in urban public high schools, the researchers said.

Nationally, about 70 percent of U.S. students graduate on time with a regular diploma and about 1.2 million students drop out annually.

"When more than 1 million students a year drop out of high school, it's more than a problem, it's a catastrophe," said former Secretary of State Colin Powell, founding chair of the alliance.

(Click on the link for the rest of the story. This is from WCCO.)

Originally Posted by MNNative

Which study?

Thanks for pointing out the 48 out of 50, that is low! I am definitely not suggesting that Mpls is as good as the suburbs, just that it might not be the worst option. <~Maybe it is though. Comparing suburbs to inner city schools seems kind of like comparing apples to oranges, to me. Maybe it's not. (I read through a rating for districts and found Richfield ranked worse than Mpls. I graduated from Richfield in 2002 and don't harbor TOO many negative opinions--wouldn't send my kids there, though--so this is primarily where my skepticism comes from in regards to how districts are rated or their reputations.)

I completely agree with your statements, that's exactly the environment we don't want our children learning in. We totally believe in the power of association and want to surround our kids with encouraging influences (I know, I know, we can't shelter them and yes, we do encourage diversity).

The study quoted in the first post of this thread .

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by MNNative

Which study?

Thanks for pointing out the 48 out of 50, that is low! I am definitely not suggesting that Mpls is as good as the suburbs, just that it might not be the worst option. <~Maybe it is though. Comparing suburbs to inner city schools seems kind of like comparing apples to oranges, to me. Maybe it's not. (I read through a rating for districts and found Richfield ranked worse than Mpls. I graduated from Richfield in 2002 and don't harbor TOO many negative opinions--wouldn't send my kids there, though--so this is primarily where my skepticism comes from in regards to how districts are rated or their reputations.)

I completely agree with your statements, that's exactly the environment we don't want our children learning in. We totally believe in the power of association and want to surround our kids with encouraging influences (I know, I know, we can't shelter them and yes, we do encourage diversity).

People tend to gravitate toward like people, people with similar values. There is a comfort zone in that. There is nothing wrong with that. I guess I can't speak for the inner-city schools but one thing I really like about our schools is no one seems to care if you are black, white, orange or pink, if you have similar interests you get along. One of the girls in DS's marching band lost her dad on the Bridge collapse this summer. The ENTIRE band rallied around her, gave her a ton of support, her friends went to church with her the first Sunday after her dad was found dead, she is black, her best friends are white and Asian. No one looks at her as a 'black' kid, they just see a bright, articulate young lady who is going places in this world.

[MNNative]

I got confused, thought you were saying the Newsweek article compared the largest cities...I am on the same page now. (mixing up the different posts regarding education, I guess...OOPS!)

Your story is a reflection of what it should be like. I'm glad it's like that at your school. We're looking for that kind of atmosphere.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by MNNative

Isn't Mpls quite different than suburbs? Is it truly fair to compare them? You won't find the same ratio/percentage of children coming from low-income to middle-class families in Eagan or Wayzata or Edina as you would Mpls, would you? I just wonder if the numbers are skewed because of the demographics and like was mentioned, the attitudes of certain families and the emphasis that is put on a good education. Is it right to blame a district who does care about serving children and families just because they were dealt the cards they hold? From what I've read, they're trying to make the best out of it. What about the families who do prosper in inner city schools? Sure, 67%, but (and I'll admit I don't have the numbers or the math, this is just an assumption) maybe out of all the kids enrolled only 67% come from backgrounds that would encourage their kids to succeed and therefore it's closer to 100% graduation rate. (Am I making sense?) I wonder if 67% isn't a big deal compared with other large cities.

This is so true, MNNative. School ratings are meaningless when deciding where your student should go. It's all about just your kid--what works best for him/her? The fact that many kids don't graduate is a societal problem, it has little to do with your kid as an individual. If your kid is not a good student and is not inclined to graduate, going to a school in the district with the highest grad rates is not going to help him!

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by golfgal

That study compared Minneapolis to other big cities. Minneapolis ranked 48th out of 50, pretty sad. Ok, so Minneapolis says it has improved--maybe yes, maybe they just changed the way they calculated the graduation rate but taking the number of kids that start 12th grade vs the number of kids that finish 12 grade vs the number of kids that start 9th grade compared to the number of kids that finish 12th grade?

As for comparing the suburbs, the argument here is that the Minneapolis schools are just as good as the suburban schools and I disagree. No, you don't the lower income students and you don't get the kids that come from families that just don't care, etc. What difference does that make, lets say you are at work and the person in the cube to your right and the cube to your left really don't want to be there, the spend their day talking back and forth over your cube, playing games on the computer, text messaging their friends, etc. How productive would you be at work? Not very right?

Translate that to the classroom where the teacher has to spend a significant amount of time disciplining kids that don't want to be there at the expense of those kids that DO want to be there. It takes away instruction time, reduces the ability for the kids that want to learn to learn. This is what makes the suburban schools better then the Minneapolis schools. Yes, there are discipline problems in the suburban schools but they are the exception rather then the rule and quite frankly, the suburban schools have more pull to get problems solved because they also usually get some support at home.

The teachers in the Minneapolis schools are NOT the problem here, it is the families that attend the schools that are the problem. Would you rather go to school or work in an environment that is supportive of you doing well or one where you have to really struggle to do well ?

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from: Would your ideal "best" school district be composed of the kids who come from the upper-most economic strata? And would you relegate all the kids who comefrom the lowest economic strata to the "worst" district? Are you saying rich kids can't learn amongst poor kids?

[MNNative]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

This is so true, MNNative. School ratings are meaningless when deciding where your student should go. It's all about just your kid--what works best for him/her? The fact that many kids don't graduate is a societal problem, it has little to do with your kid as an individual. If your kid is not a good student and is not inclined to graduate, going to a school in the district with the highest grad rates is not going to help him!

I agree, it has a TON to do with the individual child and I personally see it as the parents' responsibility to instill the right motivations in their children. At the same time, and I think this is the point Golfgal is making, how does a well-rounded student do in an equally motivated classroom versus a classroom that is configured of a bunch of non-motivated troublemakers? My daughter (the only one of my kids that is school aged) is very intelligent and absolutely loves school, but does that necessarily mean she will continue in that spirit if she is surrounded by negative-influences during these impressionable years? Rankings may not completely reflect a district, but they can serve as a glimpse into what you can be getting into.

Yes, rankings may not be the best way to decide upon a school district or particular school attendance area to move into, but then what is a person supposed to do? For those dealing with education decisions for the first time or early on, what is the best way to decide what's going to be best? For older kids you have a better understanding and you can judge of the interests they have,etc...for an almost 6 year old who's going into 1st grade...it's not so easy.

[MNNative]

I don't mean to insinuate that lower-income students are non-motivated troublemakers...though I can very well see how that can be construed from my post. Without putting my foot in my mouth...well, I just don't know how to get around it...I know kids who are from wealthy backgrounds and messed up and I know of people who are from not so wealthy backgrounds and messed up. You bring up a good point Ben Around when you wonder if a higher concentration of an upper-socioeconomic status = good schools and then lower-socioeconomic status groupings = bad districts. Is that maybe how many people view it?