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.
Yes, that it's down-and-out Springfield (not the entire state of Massachusetts) is the tragedy of the comparison for Rhode Island. It means: Rhode Island's best public schools are largely mediocre & our mediocre schools are poor. No prideful defense of our beautiful state can otherwise alter those facts. So much has to change. The thinking is so small and insular - on so many levels. The leadership just isn't here. It can be discouraging.
Generally, these tests measure the socioeconomic status of the parents of the children being tested. It's an extremely high correlation. Massachusetts is stuffed full of very affluent suburbs with mostly married high income college educated white collar residents. You have to do an apples vs apples when comparing individual school districts.
Barrington is the gold standard for demographics in Rhode Island with 67.2% college educated, $117k median household income. East Greenwich a bit lower with 61.7% college educated, $110k median household income. You really can't rank those fairly against the top-10 Boston suburbs but it would be telling to put them head-to-head against a 2nd tier Massachusetts suburb like an Andover or a Longmeadow. Since parents matter so much more than the school system, I'd bet the educational outcome is similar. You kind of have to do that for any city/town in Rhode Island. Find the equivalent demographics in a Massachusetts city/town and compare head-to-head.
I don't see how you can blame government for the lower socioeconomic status of the state when you're comparing to metro Boston or metro DC or Bay Area or metro Seattle. Those clusters with all the white collar professionals are always going to have school systems that test better. The place the government can help is with the bottom 30% where the students are almost all special needs in one way or another. The places with those demographics can't afford all the special ed costs. Federal money barely makes a dent. Massachusetts spends big money subsidizing those school systems and even that isn't enough.
Generally, these tests measure the socioeconomic status of the parents of the children being tested. It's an extremely high correlation. Massachusetts is stuffed full of very affluent suburbs with mostly married high income college educated white collar residents. You have to do an apples vs apples when comparing individual school districts.
Barrington is the gold standard for demographics in Rhode Island with 67.2% college educated, $117k median household income. East Greenwich a bit lower with 61.7% college educated, $110k median household income. You really can't rank those fairly against the top-10 Boston suburbs but it would be telling to put them head-to-head against a 2nd tier Massachusetts suburb like an Andover or a Longmeadow. Since parents matter so much more than the school system, I'd bet the educational outcome is similar. You kind of have to do that for any city/town in Rhode Island. Find the equivalent demographics in a Massachusetts city/town and compare head-to-head.
I don't see how you can blame government for the lower socioeconomic status of the state when you're comparing to metro Boston or metro DC or Bay Area or metro Seattle. Those clusters with all the white collar professionals are always going to have school systems that test better. The place the government can help is with the bottom 30% where the students are almost all special needs in one way or another. The places with those demographics can't afford all the special ed costs. Federal money barely makes a dent. Massachusetts spends big money subsidizing those school systems and even that isn't enough.
Thoughtful post but nothing new here. Of course there's a relationship between socioeconomic status and economic performance. Let's stipulate then, that raising the socioeconomic status of a state's citizenry would improve it's children's academic performance. Hasn't Rhode Island failed equally miserably at this goal? And yes, your government absolutely shares part of the blame. It's their job to foster an economic climate conducive to growth and prosperity. But so do the rest of you, for your apathy and complacency. Focusing solely on education reform without addressing the problems that keep so many people away that could help lift your state economically is absolutely doomed to failure.
Generally, these tests measure the socioeconomic status of the parents of the children being tested. It's an extremely high correlation. Massachusetts is stuffed full of very affluent suburbs with mostly married high income college educated white collar residents. You have to do an apples vs apples when comparing individual school districts.
Barrington is the gold standard for demographics in Rhode Island with 67.2% college educated, $117k median household income. East Greenwich a bit lower with 61.7% college educated, $110k median household income. You really can't rank those fairly against the top-10 Boston suburbs but it would be telling to put them head-to-head against a 2nd tier Massachusetts suburb like an Andover or a Longmeadow. Since parents matter so much more than the school system, I'd bet the educational outcome is similar. You kind of have to do that for any city/town in Rhode Island. Find the equivalent demographics in a Massachusetts city/town and compare head-to-head.
I don't see how you can blame government for the lower socioeconomic status of the state when you're comparing to metro Boston or metro DC or Bay Area or metro Seattle. Those clusters with all the white collar professionals are always going to have school systems that test better. The place the government can help is with the bottom 30% where the students are almost all special needs in one way or another. The places with those demographics can't afford all the special ed costs. Federal money barely makes a dent. Massachusetts spends big money subsidizing those school systems and even that isn't enough.
The socio-economic factor is obvious and that argument might be a better one if the entire state of RI was compared to the entire state of Massachusetts. But, comparing the entire state of RI to Springfield, MA and still finding RI wanting is devastating, unless I'm missing something?? I'd guess the Springfield school system doesn't even have a Barrington or EG area income demographic to up its average. The last time I read a MA/RI public school town to town comparison; if our #1 Barrington were in MA, it would rank #28th. http://www.providencejournal.com/opi...ach-is-failure
Last edited by independent man; 12-02-2018 at 08:15 AM..
The socio-economic factor is obvious and that argument might be a better one if the entire state of RI was compared to the entire state of Massachusetts. But, comparing the entire state of RI to Springfield, MA and still finding RI wanting is devastating, unless I'm missing something?? I'd guess the Springfield school system doesn't even have a Barrington or EG area income demographic to up its average. The last time I read a MA/RI public school town to town comparison; if our #1 Barrington were in MA, it would rank #28th. Editorial: R.I.'s approach is a failure - Opinion - providencejournal.com - Providence, RI
And that's why I called it a crock. You're trying to argue logically with someone who is only interested in making the state look inferior- why? - no idea.
And that's why I called it a crock. You're trying to argue logically with someone who is only interested in making the state look inferior- why? - no idea.
This report is devastating news for RI. That someone is trolling this sorry information here doesn't make it any less a real issue that should be addressed and addressed yesterday. Public education is Rhode Island is terrible. Our best public systems are actually mediocre. If the RI state system - grades up to 8th - were in Massachusetts it would be inferior to 90% of the systems in that state. And, that included the best systems in RI. It is a failure of leadership. The condition of public education in the state doesn't just look inferior, it IS inferior. It should be a 'pull our head out of the sand' moment. Not a time to be defensive. The PROJO editorial today is spot on!
And that's why I called it a crock. You're trying to argue logically with someone who is only interested in making the state look inferior- why? - no idea.
The truth is folks, that you really shouldn't need me to point this stuff out to you. And lashing out defensively might feel satisfying but does nothing to ameliorate your plight. And trust me, the last thing in the world that you need ANY help with is looking inferior.
The socio-economic factor is obvious and that argument might be a better one if the entire state of RI was compared to the entire state of Massachusetts. But, comparing the entire state of RI to Springfield, MA and still finding RI wanting is devastating, unless I'm missing something?? I'd guess the Springfield school system doesn't even have a Barrington or EG area income demographic to up its average. The last time I read a MA/RI public school town to town comparison; if our #1 Barrington were in MA, it would rank #28th. Editorial: R.I.'s approach is a failure - Opinion - providencejournal.com - Providence, RI
MCAS is predictive on how well you've been coached to take the MCAS exam, not true academic performance. It's just like SAT where you can coach pretty much anybody +100 points in math and verbal.
I'm not sure Barrington would make #28 in Massachusetts. Wenham is #35 and it has the same percentage of college grads as Barrington (67.2%). There are 34 towns in Massachusetts where age 25+ adults are better educated than Barrington. That's the single best predictor for educational outcome. And by that, I mean things like college placement in top colleges, not some average MCAS score which isn't all that predictive.
Springfield has Longmeadow. That's close to parity with Barrington for demographics. Longmeadow is miles down the list in MCAS scaled score but it's still a strong score compared to a total meltdown school system like Springfield. I'll bet if you put the college admissions list of Barrington grads against Longmeadow grads, it would be similar.
Thoughtful post but nothing new here. Of course there's a relationship between socioeconomic status and economic performance. Let's stipulate then, that raising the socioeconomic status of a state's citizenry would improve it's children's academic performance. Hasn't Rhode Island failed equally miserably at this goal? And yes, your government absolutely shares part of the blame. It's their job to foster an economic climate conducive to growth and prosperity. But so do the rest of you, for your apathy and complacency. Focusing solely on education reform without addressing the problems that keep so many people away that could help lift your state economically is absolutely doomed to failure.
I don't see how state government can magically change the demographics of a state. 50% of the Massachusetts workforce has a bachelor's degree or higher. For adults age 25+, 41.5% in Massachusetts have a bachelor's degree or higher. Rhode Island is 32.7%.
I hear the same thing about the Massachusetts Southcoast. Nothing the state can do is going to change the demographics of New Bedford and Fall River. They're too far from the Boston job market. You're never going to see anything but net outward migration of the talented people. In my high school graduating class, pretty much nobody in the top-10% of the class who went to good schools stuck around. Everyone went to places with better economic opportunity. It will never hit critical mass for white collar professional jobs.
The truth is folks, that you really shouldn't need me to point this stuff out to you. And lashing out defensively might feel satisfying but does nothing to ameliorate your plight. And trust me, the last thing in the world that you need ANY help with is looking inferior.
Same to you. And you're correct, we sure don't need you.
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.
