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.
I don't know why you're trying to stick so hard to an illogical argument but there's a reason why the Amish are not renowned for skills in computer programming.
There's also a reason why OTJ training is important, and it's because you cannot effectively teach somebody real world skills with just a paper, pens, and books.
What has changed in high school math, physics, biology, chemistry and history in 2017?
50% of all NJ state spending on education goes to the 31 Abbot Districts, the poorest communities. Yet, when this spending is divided by the number of students in these districts, actual per pupil spending is often greatly exceeded in wealthier districts with smaller student bases.
The winner of highest spending is the Bergen County Special Ed, at $ 60,129 per pupil with a small student population.
No shortage of districts in NJ that spend $30,000+ per pupil and most are not " economically disadvantaged" communities.
School performance is far more a reflection of the student body and home enviornment than anything else.
In the 90's I lived in Montclair NJ, a very racially and economically diverse community of extreme affluence and destitution and it all played out in the schools which ranged from drop outs to Rhodes Scholars. Same school. Same spending per pupil.
What mattered more so than anything else was what was going on within the home, or not. Those kids who came from homes with never ending economic and emotional chaos tended not to do well in school. They did not know, day to day if they would eat, be locked out, who else might be living in their home, if mama and or dad would be on a crack bender, or not. They might spend Saturday or Sunday visiting a parent in prison. They might be abandoned for days.
in so many cases, the dominate parent continuously put themselves before their children. I suspect in many cases, they just did not know any better or that drugs had rewired their brains.
While most of the most disadvantaged tended to be black, the black community produced a fair share of top students. They either came from affluent families or had stable home lives when education was highly valued.
Again. My point is that this was the same school, same spending per pupil. Very different outcomes. No telling how different outcomes might have been if all children had stable homes, free of never ending chaos and hysteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
I disagree. I dont think money has anything to do with the success of the students. In my state, the poorest school districts get the most tax dollars. They are heavily subsidized by state taxes. This is the law in NJ. Yet, in spite of spending $30k per student per year, these poor school districts are the worst performing districts in the state.
It has everything to do with parental expectations, and peer pressure. In the wealthy districts, we as parents, expect our kids to study a lot and get “A”s. Our kids hang out with other kids who place good grades above everything else. They compete with each other, so it is more like a real world environment. Kids would be embarrassed if they got a “C”. Heck, my kids are embarrassed about “B”s.
If we took the $30K and sent the poor kids to private schools, where more is expected of them, starting from a very young age, they would do much better than spending the $30k at their current public schools in Newark and Camden, NJ.
Pumping incredibly large amounts of money into badly performing schools in poor neighborhoods has been empirically tried in NJ. It failed. We know that it's the parents and community that are the cause of the performance differentials, not financial resources, because NJ ran this experiment in the real world and the results were crystal clear.
Richer neighborhoods get better results because income is correlated with caring about academic performance, proper behavior in a classroom, and intelligence. Not because of having more money. If we can figure out a way of improving low performing schools which isn't a zero-sum game (which stuff like busing is) and actually works (which throwing money at the problem does not) we should do that. Unfortunately, most people who care want to do things that have been shown to be ineffective or harmful to others and people who don't care don't care. I have a lot of respect for the few people who want to find and expand things that work (well-run charter and magnet schools seem to be the best bet) and are willing to put their time and money into that.
What has changed in high school math, physics, biology, chemistry and history in 2017?
We use a different set of tools. Screens and Keyboards are replacing most books even for the purpose of reading books. And the ability to make adaptive lessons and continuously track progress will continue to grow and will dominate much of education. Testing will also come to be dominated by screens and keyboards. It is simply a superior media to the printed book and the pen and pad.
The interaction with the teacher is still useful but less so then it was. And it will continue to change to more of a narrow and reactive role. You explain what the children are having difficulty with rather than presenting all the material.
Pumping incredibly large amounts of money into badly performing schools in poor neighborhoods has been empirically tried in NJ. It failed. We know that it's the parents and community that are the cause of the performance differentials, not financial resources, because NJ ran this experiment in the real world and the results were crystal clear.
Richer neighborhoods get better results because income is correlated with caring about academic performance, proper behavior in a classroom, and intelligence. Not because of having more money. If we can figure out a way of improving low performing schools which isn't a zero-sum game (which stuff like busing is) and actually works (which throwing money at the problem does not) we should do that. Unfortunately, most people who care want to do things that have been shown to be ineffective or harmful to others and people who don't care don't care. I have a lot of respect for the few people who want to find and expand things that work (well-run charter and magnet schools seem to be the best bet) and are willing to put their time and money into that.
There is a simple proof of the value of money. Cut the number of kids in a given school in half and see how performance and scores do. Works every time.
Would be an interesting experiment. Do it to a 100 schools of various demographics around the country and see if the result is good enough to be worth the cost.
We use a different set of tools. Screens and Keyboards are replacing most books even for the purpose of reading books. And the ability to make adaptive lessons and continuously track progress will continue to grow and will dominate much of education. Testing will also come to be dominated by screens and keyboards. It is simply a superior media to the printed book and the pen and pad.
The interaction with the teacher is still useful but less so then it was. And it will continue to change to more of a narrow and reactive role. You explain what the children are having difficulty with rather than presenting all the material.
If I take a high school graduate from rural India who has never seen a computer, would he not be able to pass our graduation exam here?
Oh, wait, our high school only requires attendance to graduate.
If I take a high school graduate from rural India who has never seen a computer, would he not be able to pass our graduation exam here?
Oh, wait, our high school only requires attendance to graduate.
Take a high school aged child from rural India and it is 50/50 as to whether he is literate at all. And you will not find any high school graduate in India who is not computer exposed. And if you actually did the experiment they would virtually all flunk any reasonable graduate exam. The generic schools in rural India are pretty much terrible. India turns out some fine STEM graduates...but they are a miniscule percentage of the population and come through a few very selective channels. And not from rural high schools.
Actually the requirements to graduate should be that certain standards are met. But they need not be that all are qualified and ready for college. I would think we might require though that those schools with college tracts actually turn out students ready for college.
If anybody is truly looking for a solution, one look at the attendance rate in school would be enough.
It's NOT the money, resource, teachers, or facilities. It's the parenting and culture.
First thing I would look at is the turn over rate. And that one is pretty close to being deadly. And I am not sure what can be done about it without some massive social service commitment. Perhaps a set of schools in the inner cities that are in absolute lock step hour by hour. The thought being that it makes no difference which classroom you are in...exactly the same thing is covered. Not sure if it can be done however.
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.
