Feds give GA $19 million for lowest performing schools (Atlanta, Jackson: job market, public schools)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by onemanarmy

I agree with you 100%, but what if their parents are failing them? How do we as a society go about changing the future for these kids, so that they will not fail their children. It requires money ....

Money to whom though?

City of Atlanta schools are already getting (and spending) FAR more per pupil than other metro school systems. That has been true for the last several decades.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by onemanarmy

I agree with you 100%, but what if their parents are failing them? How do we as a society go about changing the future for these kids, so that they will not fail their children. It requires money, now the arguement should be how to BETTER spend the money allocated, not reallocate it as other have suggested.

So how do we better use the money to break the chronic hopelessness of the parents and children who attend our failing public schools?

It sounds like you're dumping money at the door of the school, and no one knows what to do with it. They'll probably just spend it on...something. If you don't, you lose it...that's how government agencies work. I don't think it's money, but attitude that matters most.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Right. The city of Atlanta doesn't have poorly funded schools. To the contrary, they are extremely well funded. Expenditures per pupil are far and away the highest in metro area.

If money is the solution, then why are so many schools performing poorly?

But it's more complex than that. It's not simply a matter of adding money to get a solution, as if money were the water applied to instant milk powder. It's also how that money is spent. The "per pupil" calculation may just be an average. But are the students getting the benefits of that money in terms of student engagement? Or are those monies being paid to inflated contract prices for school construction projects, to six figure salaries for administrators, etc.?

In other words, it's primarily about the *how* here, in terms of how that money is spent. Such data shouldn't be interpreted as evidence that money itself doesn't matter. There's also the reality of cultural, non-monetary forces outside the school itself, which we may or may not be able to do all that much about. (This is where I agree with most everyone in this thread. I just want to be sure we're not dismissing the role of school funding as a whole.)

[northwinds]

People here are confusing "wealth of the neighborhood" which does correlate with better scores, and "expenditure per pupil" which clearly does not correlate with better test scores as shown by the data presented by Arjay57. Clearly "wealth of the neighborhood" has some correlation factor because, generally speaking, wealthy people have higher IQs than poor folks....that's why they are "wealthy". Also, wealthy people have a proven pattern of making good decisions, whereas poor people generally have a history of making poor decisions e.g. drug and alcohol abuse, getting pregnant in their teens, etc. The wealthy family is going to put their resources toward tutors or other educational enhancements....whereas, the poor family might think MadDog 20/20 is a better use of family resources. The point of my initial post was that it is insane for a society to continue to fund underperforming schools/pupils when there is no correlation between funding and performance. If someone has a plan to make everyone "wealthy" with everyone making good life choices then bring it on. The kids in South Fulton get the same funding, if not better, than the kids in North Fulton.....same curriculum......but historically underperform.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Comments above.

I believe that most kids possess the same potential. It is how it is nurtured that largely determines whether the kid lives up to that potential. Kids generally rise up to meet expectations of their parents. Expect a lot, and they generally achieve a lot. Expect nothing, and they'll achieve nothing. *Sure there are exceptions to this, but on a large scale, and as an educator I have seen this to be true)

You ask great questions here. And I don't disagree about the role of nurturing and student potential. I just think that schools are responsible for part of that nurturing. Yes, it may only be for 8 hours a day. And in many cases, those 8 hours won't be enough to counteract the crap they're getting outside those 8 hours. But shouldn't we do our best to make sure all kids in all contexts get the best 8 hours possible a day? Isn't that one responsibility of the state? Isn't that one of the major reasons that the U.S. became such a great country in the first place, by providing opportunities for upward social mobility via our public education system? I do think we have an important duty here.

We can't control well for inequalities outside of that window of public education, though, so we may have to just admit that there are some problems we can't just simply fix. But I certainly don't think we've done our best for poorer kids within those eight hours a day we can help them out.

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Money to whom though?

City of Atlanta schools are already getting (and spending) FAR more per pupil than other metro school systems. That has been true for the last several decades.

I'm not making that argument, but let me make this clearer to all the naysayers. Read carefully....
What is YOUR idea on solving this situation? We all know that money alone doesn't change anything! However does anyone have any IDEAS? I don't, so I don't complain about giving the schools or school system the money and maybe they find a solution to a growing problem facing our country. However complaining that more money isn't helping, is basically suggesting LESS money will.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

You ask great questions here. And I don't disagree about the role of nurturing and student potential. I just think that schools are responsible for part of that nurturing. Yes, it may only be for 8 hours a day. And in many cases, those 8 hours won't be enough to counteract the crap they're getting outside those 8 hours. But shouldn't we do our best to make sure all kids in all contexts get the best 8 hours possible a day? Isn't that one responsibility of the state? Isn't that one of the major reasons that the U.S. became such a great country in the first place, by providing opportunities for upward social mobility via our public education system? I do think we have an important duty here.

We can't control well for inequalities outside of that window of public education, though, so we may have to just admit that there are some problems we can't just simply fix. But I certainly don't think we've done our best for poorer kids within those eight hours a day we can help them out.

That's high on "feel good" but low on specifics. What makes Walton a good high school and Crim a po...er...underperforming school? Atlanta City Schools are spending more per pupil than anywhere else so throwing more money at the problem won't help. If money can be shown to be needed, squeeze it out of the excess in the APS.

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

It sounds like you're dumping money at the door of the school, and no one knows what to do with it. They'll probably just spend it on...something. If you don't, you lose it...that's how government agencies work. I don't think it's money, but attitude that matters most.

Yes I agree............How do we change this? Read all the comments, no one is offering any plausible alternatively . This issue is really dear to me, children being systematically left to slaughter because of poor parenting, a troubled educational system, and a darwinistic attitude of society. We need solutions, and no one here has one. Do I think more money is the issue, probably not, but LESS money certainly is not a better alternative, or is it? You see, I don't know, atleast I'm honest about my ignorance, others seem to know exactly what to do, although I have asked numerous times and nobody has bitten. We all play offense.....

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by onemanarmy

I'm not making that argument, but let me make this clearer to all the naysayers. Read carefully....
What is YOUR idea on solving this situation? We all know that money alone doesn't change anything! However does anyone have any IDEAS? I don't, so I don't complain about giving the schools or school system the money and maybe they find a solution to a growing problem facing our country. However complaining that more money isn't helping, is basically suggesting LESS money will.

I'd start out with school choice and vouchers for private schools. Put competition into a system that has been working like a monopoly.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by northwinds

People here are confusing "wealth of the neighborhood" which does correlate with better scores, and "expenditure per pupil" which clearly does not correlate with better test scores as shown by the data presented by Arjay57.

Again, this isn't exactly right. Actual data seem to be complicated, but they all point to the fact that money DOES matter as *part* of the issue. It just matters how it is spent per pupil.

One helpful source here relevant to arjay's post:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03234.pdf

Among the schools we reviewed, differences in per-pupil spending
between inner city and suburban schools varied by metropolitan area, with
inner city schools spending more in some areas and suburban schools
spending more in others. In Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, the selected
inner city schools generally outspent suburban schools on a per-pupil
basis. In Fort Worth and New York, the suburban schools in our study
generally spent more per pupil than the selected inner city schools. In
Denver and Oakland, spending differences between inner city and
suburban schools were mixed. In general, higher per-pupil expenditures at
any given school were explained primarily by higher staff salaries
regardless of whether the school was an inner city or suburban schools.
Two other important factors included lower student-teacher ratios and
lower ratios of students to student support staff, such as guidance
counselors, nurses, and librarians. While the selected inner city schools in
Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis generally spent more per pupil than
neighboring suburban schools, when we made adjustments using the
highest weights the suburban schools generally spent more in every
metropolitan area reviewed, because inner city schools had higher
percentages of low-income students. Some research has shown that
children from low-income families may require extra resources to perform at the same levels as their nonpoor peers. . . . Inner city students in the schools we reviewed generally performed poorly
in comparison to students in suburban schools, a disparity that may be related to several differences we identified in the characteristics of inner city and suburban schools. Although research results are inconclusive on the importance of various factors, some studies have shown that greater teacher experience, smaller class size, more library and computer resources, and higher levels of parental involvement are positively related to student achievement. The inner city schools we visited generally had higher percentages of first-year teachers, higher enrollments, fewer library
and computer resources, and less in-school parental involvement.

So, the demonstrated features that impact student achievement are:

(1) Teacher experience
(2) Smaller class size
(3) Library and computer resources
(4) Parental involvement

School funding absolutely impacts (1), (2), and (3) there. Those are money issues, in terms of who you hire, how many people you hire, and how strong the technological resources are.

Issue (4) there speaks to the other concern that has less to do with school funding and more to do with culture.

So, again, it is BOTH MONEY AND ATTITUDE that impacts student achievement. When you gut schools, as we have been doing recently by increasing class sizes and firing teachers, this is a recipe for disaster. Attitudes need to change, sure, but we need to be putting enough money into schools to strengthen those other factors. Or we at least need to budget better with available resources (less money for adminstrators, I say!)