Why does Georgia rank so low in terms of education? (Avera: 2013, high school)

[equinox63]

Why does Georgia rank so low in terms of education? Particularly K-12. And what do you think we could do about it?

[ChefRamsey]

Inner city schools, rural schools, white conservatives not valuing education, hispanics valuing manual labor over education, blacks liberals not valuing education.

It's all of our fault.

[ChefRamsey]

As to fix it, many have suggested using something like a "professorship" for teachers so that we can distribute the best teachers to low-preforming school systems.

Georgia's HOPE Scholarship has partially resulted in Georgia's public university system, the USG, having the 7th largest enrollment in the world..and the third or fourth largest enrollment in the United States.

[cwkimbro]

Georgia actually has one of the largest rural populations of any state. As far as rural areas go, we have more density. It is one of the biggest reasons our state votes overwhelmingly Republican, despite having one of the nation's largest urban centers (which traditionally vote for Democrats).

Rural areas tend to under perform and there are many reasons for this. In most rural areas the economy is not diversified. It is mostly farming, resource extraction, and some light industrial trying to escape high salaries or environmental laws. The rest is mostly service based for those people. Higher paying jobs are largely just in the cities. This means most the people in those areas already aren't as well educated as their urban peers and it reflects their ability to help their children as well. Many people are descendents of sharecroppers that never really moved on, but instead set down roots in their local communities.

The other side to this is money, money, money. With everything I just said these communities don't have much money and their local governments are more cash-strapped. To make matters worse, they often don't have the critical mass of students in one geographic area to operate efficiently and have larger class offerings. In other words a high school with 3000 students with most living within 5 miles of the school can operate more efficiently, bus students easier, and offer more courses compared to a school of 700 students with many students living 15 miles away.

Go to states like New Jersey, Connecticut, or New York and you'll find a much larger percentage of their population is in urban/suburban areas. Some of those cities are so large, even some of the "rural" population is better characterized as a vacation or large estate area for the wealthy cities.

This means fewer students families are behind from the get-go. It also means they can more easily use their resources to help out under performing areas. They have more wealth and fewer people needing help.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by equinox63

Why does Georgia rank so low in terms of education? Particularly K-12. And what do you think we could do about it?

Based on what ranking?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

Georgia actually has one of the largest rural populations of any state. As far as rural areas go, we have more density. It is one of the biggest reasons our state votes overwhelmingly Republican, despite having one of the nation's largest urban centers (which traditionally vote for Democrats).

Rural areas tend to under perform and there are many reasons for this. In most rural areas the economy is not diversified. It is mostly farming, resource extraction, and some light industrial trying to escape high salaries or environmental laws. The rest is mostly service based for those people. Higher paying jobs are largely just in the cities. This means most the people in those areas already aren't as well educated as their urban peers and it reflects their ability to help their children as well. Many people are descendents of sharecroppers that never really moved on, but instead set down roots in their local communities.

The other side to this is money, money, money. With everything I just said these communities don't have much money and their local governments are more cash-strapped. To make matters worse, they often don't have the critical mass of students in one geographic area to operate efficiently and have larger class offerings. In other words a high school with 3000 students with most living within 5 miles of the school can operate more efficiently, bus students easier, and offer more courses compared to a school of 700 students with many students living 15 miles away.

Go to states like New Jersey, Connecticut, or New York and you'll find a much larger percentage of their population is in urban/suburban areas. Some of those cities are so large, even some of the "rural" population is better characterized as a vacation or large estate area for the wealthy cities.

This means fewer students families are behind from the get-go. It also means they can more easily use their resources to help out under performing areas. They have more wealth and fewer people needing help.

Excellent post, cw.

We are not taking very good care of our folks out in the country.

[emcee squared]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Based on what ranking?

#45 on the SAT
#33 on the ACT
#45 HS graduation rate


Commonwealth Foundation - SAT Scores by State 2013
2012 ACT National and State Scores | Average Scores by State | ACT
http://www.americashealthrankings.org/all/graduation

I do understand there are many factors that go into these poor numbers.

[MattCW]

A good chunk of it, especially on the standardized test scores, is we practically force everyone to take them whereas the northern states don't. Take a look at emcee squared's first two links, it shows a strong correlation between higher numbers of students taking the tests, and lower scores. Not everyone is bound for college and it's time to stop trying to force-fit everyone into a college-prep-based education.

Here's a graph I created using the data from the first link showing the correlation between percentage of participation and scores. Yes, there are outliers, but there is a general trend as you can see in the trendline, and Georgia's score sits right on the line. The boundaries of the graph are exactly the limits of the data so that's why it starts at 2%, and the score axis goes from 1351 to 1807.
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/d...pse41585e3.jpg

[dblackga]

In 2013, Georgia had a 75% participation rate. That means that 3 out of 4 prospective high school graduates that year took the SAT. 3 out of 4!!!! There are only 8 states with higher participation rates. Of the 15 schools with the highest participation rates, Georgia was ranked 11th. Delaware, with a 100% participation rate, also had the LOWEST SAT scores overall.

So, like MattCW, I take those figures with a very, very large dash of salt on the side. Compare it to Illinois -- similar to Georgia, in many ways -- with one large metropolitan area (Chicago) vs. a LOT of rural area. Illinois' participation rate is only 5%, and yet they are top in SAT scores.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .

Nothing is going to improve education until there are consequences for NOT being educated. Somewhere along the way, education became a right, not a privilege. It is not valued across the board, because so many know that a high school diploma doesn't represent any great accomplishment in terms of learning. It's a participation trophy. Until schools are empowered to throw out kids who are disruptive and have no interest in learning and demand excellence from those that remain, then this is what we're stuck with. Make it something that is difficult to obtain, make it an accomplishment, and it will be valued more.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by ChefRamsey

As to fix it, many have suggested using something like a "professorship" for teachers so that we can distribute the best teachers to low-preforming school systems.

Georgia's HOPE Scholarship has partially resulted in Georgia's public university system, the USG, having the 7th largest enrollment in the world..and the third or fourth largest enrollment in the United States.

The low-performing schools already have many great teachers that are as hard working and dedicated (probably more so) as those in higher-performing schools. The problem is not with the teachers, although many people try to pin it on us. There are many societal issues that cause students and schools to be low-performing...mainly poverty and lower levels of parental involvement. If these problems were actually addressed we might see improvement.