Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-30-2016, 09:27 AM
 
3,281 posts, read 6,292,467 times
Reputation: 2416

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
While I'm of the agreement that switching teachers between "good and bad schools" wouldn't change things, I disagree with much of what you say. Yes demographics matter and teachers can't be expected to fill the void in a kid's life caused by out-of-school factors. But ratings ARE junk, ghetto schools can be better than people expect, and kids from those schools can and have done well. There's no reason to scoff at kids who have gone through those schools.
Good point and I almost responded to him in the same way. The local district in which I live has a poverty rate of nearly 70% and about 20% of the students have special needs. As you might expect, the district's overall ratings on the state report card are below average. However, the district maintains strong gifted programs in the primary and middle grades, and has a wide array of AP classes at the high school level. Two or three of the schools in the district are also IB designated schools. As a result, this district annually sends several dozen students to "Ivy Plus" level colleges. Unfortunately, despite the fact that this district clearly services a wide range of abilities, local perception tends to be that this is a "ghetto" district that is not living up to expectations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-30-2016, 11:55 PM
 
1,950 posts, read 3,536,862 times
Reputation: 2770
My answer to title question is "yes" but only if there is also heavy parental involvement. Good teaching cannot always compensate for a bad home life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2016, 04:18 AM
 
2,643 posts, read 2,634,365 times
Reputation: 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clevelander17 View Post
Good point and I almost responded to him in the same way. The local district in which I live has a poverty rate of nearly 70% and about 20% of the students have special needs. As you might expect, the district's overall ratings on the state report card are below average. However, the district maintains strong gifted programs in the primary and middle grades, and has a wide array of AP classes at the high school level. Two or three of the schools in the district are also IB designated schools. As a result, this district annually sends several dozen students to "Ivy Plus" level colleges. Unfortunately, despite the fact that this district clearly services a wide range of abilities, local perception tends to be that this is a "ghetto" district that is not living up to expectations.
I can't site this article enough!

The 'Failing High School' That Never Failed Me
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2016, 06:54 PM
 
3,281 posts, read 6,292,467 times
Reputation: 2416
Quote:
Originally Posted by west seattle gal View Post
My answer to title question is "yes" but only if there is also heavy parental involvement. Good teaching cannot always compensate for a bad home life.
But the thing is, you're not changing the parents or parental behavior in this thought experiment, only the teachers change. So the same major challenge that existed before the teachers were switched out would still exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2016, 11:12 AM
 
2,547 posts, read 4,240,041 times
Reputation: 5612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clevelander17 View Post
Good point and I almost responded to him in the same way. The local district in which I live has a poverty rate of nearly 70% and about 20% of the students have special needs. As you might expect, the district's overall ratings on the state report card are below average. However, the district maintains strong gifted programs in the primary and middle grades, and has a wide array of AP classes at the high school level. Two or three of the schools in the district are also IB designated schools. As a result, this district annually sends several dozen students to "Ivy Plus" level colleges. Unfortunately, despite the fact that this district clearly services a wide range of abilities, local perception tends to be that this is a "ghetto" district that is not living up to expectations.
While I'm not arguing that this all exists...my point is that, again, these are all exceptions rather than the rule. If you're looking at overall success rates, you may have one or two students from a poorly-performing school who go on to Ivy colleges, thanks to some dedicated teachers and IB programs. That will be considered a huge success story lauded over and over. While in a well-performing district, there will be many of these students and that won't even be considered a big deal, just what is expected of this school.

To veer slightly off the topic of teacher per se, I feel people on C-D tend to greatly underestimate the power of peer pressure and influence in these very vulnerable age groups - middle and high schools especially. We all know kids in wealthy schools and families are certainly not immune to problems like drugs and crime, but you have to agree the rates are much lower than in poor schools. Now, I'm betting you. That if you took a whole bunch of run-of-the-mill wealthy, reasonably motivated decent students from a regular wealthy high school, and placed them into a terrifying 'ghetto' school for a couple of years...preferably having them live around the same neighborhood as these kids too, but without changing anything else in their lives...and compared their outcomes with their peers who stayed behind in the 'good' school...I can guarantee you that you will find a much higher percentage of those who got moved getting into drugs, dropping grades or even dropping out, possible crime and other sorts of trouble.

Of course such an experiment would be very difficult to conduct accurately (not to mention impossible since no parent would agree to it), but I think my point is still valid. It's not trendy or PC to admit that your surroundings influence your or your kids' attitude. Everyone likes to shout how you have to be independent and responsible for your own life, and how *their* kids are raised to be strong people who know their own way and will never succumb to negative influence. However if we actually look at teens and their psychology and behaviour in the overall population, the picture painted is quite different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2016, 02:04 PM
 
2,643 posts, read 2,634,365 times
Reputation: 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCookie View Post
While I'm not arguing that this all exists...my point is that, again, these are all exceptions rather than the rule. If you're looking at overall success rates, you may have one or two students from a poorly-performing school who go on to Ivy colleges, thanks to some dedicated teachers and IB programs. That will be considered a huge success story lauded over and over. While in a well-performing district, there will be many of these students and that won't even be considered a big deal, just what is expected of this school.

To veer slightly off the topic of teacher per se, I feel people on C-D tend to greatly underestimate the power of peer pressure and influence in these very vulnerable age groups - middle and high schools especially. We all know kids in wealthy schools and families are certainly not immune to problems like drugs and crime, but you have to agree the rates are much lower than in poor schools. Now, I'm betting you. That if you took a whole bunch of run-of-the-mill wealthy, reasonably motivated decent students from a regular wealthy high school, and placed them into a terrifying 'ghetto' school for a couple of years...preferably having them live around the same neighborhood as these kids too, but without changing anything else in their lives...and compared their outcomes with their peers who stayed behind in the 'good' school...I can guarantee you that you will find a much higher percentage of those who got moved getting into drugs, dropping grades or even dropping out, possible crime and other sorts of trouble.

Of course such an experiment would be very difficult to conduct accurately (not to mention impossible since no parent would agree to it), but I think my point is still valid. It's not trendy or PC to admit that your surroundings influence your or your kids' attitude. Everyone likes to shout how you have to be independent and responsible for your own life, and how *their* kids are raised to be strong people who know their own way and will never succumb to negative influence. However if we actually look at teens and their psychology and behaviour in the overall population, the picture painted is quite different.
Which is why you can't go on overall scores. There are plenty of excellent middle class schools that would be so-so if you only looked at overall scores. My own oldest kid went to a high drop out rate school without an IB program, got as high a score (and higher) on his AP exams than his sister in a suburb. One or two kids going Ivy in any school is impressive, but you also have to remember that cost is a factor so many kids from lower income schools so they won't be looking at Colby or Bennington type schools.

As for peer pressure....well, I can't help you if you insist on being wrong and live in fear. Have faith in your parenting and your child will do very well. If you are that insistent that your own child will succumb to drugs and crime and you are not in control, than you shouldn't be a parent. Your hypothesis is wrong also...drugs are everywhere. Rich kids have better access to it as a matter of fact. As a nurse, I can tell you that most overdoses we see aren't coming from low income kids. They're coming from suburban middle-upper middle class and wealthy homes. Addiction can happen anywhere and schools are the last place medical staff looks to blame when we see them.

Again, have faith in your parenting. Your attitude toward kids in poor schools is dangerous in that it perpetuates an incorrect stereotype which isn't good for you or your kids....and it's unfair to poor kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2016, 07:50 AM
 
Location: PA
2,113 posts, read 2,413,863 times
Reputation: 5471
I think that in order to get the students in poor inner city schools to improve, it's going to take a lot more than the caliber of the teachers to make a difference. I recall reading somewhere a while ago that the reason kids in some foreign countries outperform those in the US is due to increased parental involvement. I hate to reinforce a stereotype, but often kids in the inner city come from families where the parents are ill-equipped to help them succeed. They don't have the education themselved to be able to guide their children in the right direction, help them with their homework, or expose their children to potential career paths. And there are parents that plain don't care and expect their teachers to babysit their kids. My next-door neighbor is an elementary school teacher in a poor school district and she tells me story upon story how there are kids in her class that are half asleep because their parents were partying all night and the kids couldn't sleep. You have kids that are hungry, disheveled, and that don't have school supplies, yet she has seen mothers roll up in an Escalade (why is it always an Escalade?) with their hair and nails done and a brand name handbag.

In my experience also is that these families and other people in their communities have a crabs in a bucket, anti-intellectual worldview and don't see the need in making the personal investment in making sure that their kids succeed. It's sad, really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2016, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Southern California
122 posts, read 153,150 times
Reputation: 160
Short answer: an emphatic no

Long answer...

I attended an under performing school K-12 (NYC).
I now teach at an under performing school in an under performing district (So Cal), I am coming up on my 17th fall.

Regardless of their rankings, accolades, etc., not all teachers are equipped mentally, emotionally, or physically to handle the "worst under performing ghetto" schools. The numbers of teachers here who are able to thrive is heavily outweighed by those just trying to survive the day (let alone quarter, semester, year).

My observations as a student in the city were most of my classmates were bad. Out of the 30-40 of us in the class there were about 5-6 that would have homework to turn in, projects, presentations, etc on any regular basis. Of us 5-6 we fell into 2 categories self-motivated/naturally curious/"smart" kids or kids that came from a house where someone cared about education enough to make sure it was done, or a combo of those traits. In all our cases we were from lower working class families.

Certain teachers had "it" and engaged most of the class most of the time, but those individuals were few and far between. Many of them ended up leaving. All four of my favorite teachers growing up (that I am in now in touch with thanks to facebook) went elsewhere to teach or in the case of my first grade teacher that inspired me to become and teacher and go to college in California (like she did) left the professional all together.

The levels of disrespect I witnessed on a daily basis as a child wouldn't be believed in this forum, and at the time, seemed normal in the context of my "ghetto school". However I could differentiate that behavior was absolutely unacceptable at my house, the homes of my older siblings (who had their own families/kid), and likely in society at-large.

Now the children are worse than the ones I grew up with. I think the parents of my peers were too busy putting food on the table working multiple jobs to worry about homework and didn't view education as an investment in child/future/family well being/etc.

Parents now (specifically speaking to my campus/district) are often children themselves. I have regular conversations with parents who think I am "out of touch" because I reprimand a student who has his underwear literally showing in class (how is sagging still a thing, they were doing this when I was in 4th-5th-6th grade). Parents who are IRATE because I call them and "take up their minutes with bullsh!!" when I want to speak with them about their child. And don't ever make the mistake of calling a parent when Empire is on!

And these are the small annoying issues and don't even touch on some of the mental/emotional torture I have witnessed (and had to give statements on) teenagers and parents putting on teachers they have vilified for whatever conceived slight. The final stage of destruction on our campuses is the threat of physical violence some teachers feel here.

As the parent of a school aged male, I wouldn't consider for five seconds to send my child to the school/district I am at. If my child didn't have my personality, he would likely be bullied because he has eclectic taste/style and uses proper grammar.

Working parents have it tough trying to make ends meet at the bare minimum however home values of respect, discipline, and hard work must be taught in the home from birth in order to revive the state of mind of many of the students.

This is all just my opinion, and while the "bad" students will never deter me from this profession in this area, I don't begrudge any of my peers who took the first train outta here as soon as their student loans and/or credential was paid off/completed etc.

We have your kids for less than 6 hours per day and didn't rear them in their thinking/thought process/value system prior to getting them in the classroom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2016, 05:38 PM
 
3,281 posts, read 6,292,467 times
Reputation: 2416
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCookie View Post
While I'm not arguing that this all exists...my point is that, again, these are all exceptions rather than the rule. If you're looking at overall success rates, you may have one or two students from a poorly-performing school who go on to Ivy colleges, thanks to some dedicated teachers and IB programs. That will be considered a huge success story lauded over and over. While in a well-performing district, there will be many of these students and that won't even be considered a big deal, just what is expected of this school.

To veer slightly off the topic of teacher per se, I feel people on C-D tend to greatly underestimate the power of peer pressure and influence in these very vulnerable age groups - middle and high schools especially. We all know kids in wealthy schools and families are certainly not immune to problems like drugs and crime, but you have to agree the rates are much lower than in poor schools. Now, I'm betting you. That if you took a whole bunch of run-of-the-mill wealthy, reasonably motivated decent students from a regular wealthy high school, and placed them into a terrifying 'ghetto' school for a couple of years...preferably having them live around the same neighborhood as these kids too, but without changing anything else in their lives...and compared their outcomes with their peers who stayed behind in the 'good' school...I can guarantee you that you will find a much higher percentage of those who got moved getting into drugs, dropping grades or even dropping out, possible crime and other sorts of trouble.

Of course such an experiment would be very difficult to conduct accurately (not to mention impossible since no parent would agree to it), but I think my point is still valid. It's not trendy or PC to admit that your surroundings influence your or your kids' attitude. Everyone likes to shout how you have to be independent and responsible for your own life, and how *their* kids are raised to be strong people who know their own way and will never succumb to negative influence. However if we actually look at teens and their psychology and behaviour in the overall population, the picture painted is quite different.
The district of which I am speaking still has enough of a critical mass that the high-achievers take most of their classes together (advanced math and advanced language arts and band in the lower grades, and when they're older advanced science and advanced social studies as well). The effects of peer pressure are real, but in this case it's not really an issue. There's still not enough high-achievers in the district to pull test scores out of the C/D range on the Ohio's faulty report card system, but again this is an indication that ratings do not reflect the learning and achievements of this group.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2016, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Midwest
4,666 posts, read 5,111,377 times
Reputation: 6830
As long as the students had the desire to learn. It really doesn't matter how good the teacher is if the pupil doesn't care they won't learn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:34 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top