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.
Good for a laugh and certainly embarrassing, but it's an outlier.
Jindal's education reforms will lift Louisiana's rankings.
How? Fewer than 1% of kids can get these vouchers. If anything, the money being siphoned away with the few kids who will be receiving vouchers will make it harder for struggling schools to improve.
That's the conundrum. There is a pretty strong correlation between the quality of public schools and how we fund them. Schools in wealthy communities tend to be superior because they have a large property tax base and therefore more funding per pupil. These are ironically also the communities less likely to need vouchers, since 1) the wealthy can already afford private tuition if they want to pay it and 2) the public schools are already good enough to compete based on quality. In wealthy communities, private educational opportunities tend to be almost exclusively sectarian since religious instruction is the only significant difference.
Some states have tried to level the playing field by making education funding more of a state issue than a local issue. Distributing state funds on a per student basis markedly improves the funding of schools in those poorer communities. Vouchers (on the other hand) undo all those efforts by siphoning even more money from cash strapped schools. They are the catalyst for accelerating a downward direction rather than a competitive impetus to improve.
Vermont has experimented with a system of state funding of schools to make them more equal. Taxes have skyrocketed and the schools are largely below national average still. The real problem lies in poor teachers who have tenure and can't be fired for their poor performance easily.
Vermont has experimented with a system of state funding of schools to make them more equal. Taxes have skyrocketed and the schools are largely below national average still. The real problem lies in poor teachers who have tenure and can't be fired for their poor performance easily.
Vermont has schools that are largely below National average? I don't think so. Where did you get your data?
Your link gives the state the #1 slot for the test score it used, but the state's overall ranking was given a D and is at the bottom. Vermont does well in some areas but overall does poorly.
The schools in VT are not doing very well when you dig into them. I've been a teacher here in the past and experienced a large percentage of students who could hardly read. One of the schools I once worked at was after I left failing to meet the NCLB standards.
The schools in VT are not doing very well when you dig into them. I've been a teacher here in the past and experienced a large percentage of students who could hardly read.
All of the links you sent, show that Vermont is still performing at a rate better than the US average. You said that 'Vermont schools are largely below national average.' Yet your own data seems to contradict that claim.
1. Higher than average high school grad rates
2. Higher than US average reading scores
Sure, in any group of students you might be able to point a few that aren't living up to expectations, but nevertheless, all indications are that Vermont is still doing it far better than average. Hence the #1 rating for student performance.
As for the D rating, that has nothing to do with student performance. That's a rating given to each State based on it's 'Educational reform policies' whatever that means. It's hard to argue that a State that is ranked number 1 in student performance needs to reform it's educational policies very much. In other words, 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it.'
Conversely, I live in Florida, and have two children currently in school. No way, no how, that Florida public schools are near the top in anything. Granted, Florida has been trying many different things in the past few years, (reforms?) but that's more because the public schools were, have been, and still are, far below average, by any measure. I wouldn't say that a State that's in a panic mode trying whatever it can think of, in a desperate attempt to improve failing performance, deserves a top rating.
In the end, it's still about actual student performance, not the number of different failed reform ideas that a State can come up with.
Good for Vermont for standing pat with what is obviously working, and letting actual quantifiable data drive it's decision making process.
All of the links you sent, show that Vermont is still performing at a rate better than the US average. You said that 'Vermont schools are largely below national average.' Yet your own data seems to contradict that claim.
1. Higher than average high school grad rates
2. Higher than US average reading scores
Sure, in any group of students you might be able to point a few that aren't living up to expectations, but nevertheless, all indications are that Vermont is still doing it far better than average. Hence the #1 rating for student performance.
As for the D rating, that has nothing to do with student performance. That's a rating given to each State based on it's 'Educational reform policies' whatever that means. It's hard to argue that a State that is ranked number 1 in student performance needs to reform it's educational policies very much. In other words, 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it.'
Conversely, I live in Florida, and have two children currently in school. No way, no how, that Florida public schools are near the top in anything. Granted, Florida has been trying many different things in the past few years, (reforms?) but that's more because the public schools were, have been, and still are, far below average, by any measure. I wouldn't say that a State that's in a panic mode trying whatever it can think of, in a desperate attempt to improve failing performance, deserves a top rating.
In the end, it's still about actual student performance, not the number of different failed reform ideas that a State can come up with.
Good for Vermont for standing pat with what is obviously working, and letting actual quantifiable data drive it's decision making process.
Vermont's problems are why the state attempted to get a waiver from NCLB. And as my first link points out, when you go up to higher education, VT is doing very poorly. I think it does say something when such a low percentage of high school students have any desire to go to college. HS diplomas aren't getting most people too far these days.
If you read my second link closely, it points out 27 percent of students are non-reading, and 32 percent only have "partial" mastery of reading. That's a substantial number of our students who don't read proficiently. It also pointed out that rather than improving, things are seemingly getting worse, in spite of extreme jumps in spending in recent years. Statistics can hide lies.
Vermont's problems are why the state attempted to get a waiver from NCLB. And as my first link points out, when you go up to higher education, VT is doing very poorly. I think it does say something when such a low percentage of high school students have any desire to go to college. HS diplomas aren't getting most people too far these days.
If you read my second link closely, it points out 27 percent of students are non-reading, and 32 percent only have "partial" mastery of reading. That's a substantial number of our students who don't read proficiently. It also pointed out that rather than improving, things are seemingly getting worse, in spite of extreme jumps in spending in recent years. Statistics can hide lies.
I believe your original claim was that Vermont schools are performing at a below US average level. So, now you are changing that claim?
Is your new claim that 'yes Vermont is performing at a rate far better then the US average, but in spite of that laudable average, we can still do even better.'
If that is what you are now claiming, then I can agree with that.
As for the poor percentage of Vermont high school students that choose to go on to college, I don't think you can reasonably blame Vermont high schools for that. Surely, you would agree that a decision to attend college is much more about home environment and ideology, rather than high school teachings.
Sounds to me like your beef is with the parents of the good State of Vermont.
I believe your original claim was that Vermont schools are performing at a below US average level. So, now you are changing that claim?
Is your new claim that 'yes Vermont is performing at a rate far better then the US average, but in spite of that laudable average, we can still do even better.'
If that is what you are now claiming, then I can agree with that.
As for the poor percentage of Vermont high school students that choose to go on to college, I don't think you can reasonably blame Vermont high schools for that. Surely, you would agree that a decision to attend college is much more about home environment and ideology, rather than high school teachings.
Sounds to me like your beef is with the parents of the good State of Vermont.
Do you consider 59 percent of students not being fully proficient in reading good?
High schools are supposed to prepare students for the real world. While obviously not everyone should go to college, one would expect that if high schools are preparing students well, they would understand they aren't going to do well on average with just a HS education.
Vermont's schools have not met federal standards under NCLB.
Do you consider 59 percent of students not being fully proficient in reading good?
High schools are supposed to prepare students for the real world. While obviously not everyone should go to college, one would expect that if high schools are preparing students well, they would understand they aren't going to do well on average with just a HS education.
Vermont's schools have not met federal standards under NCLB.
The topic wasn't "is 59 percent of students not being fully proficient in reading good?"
The topic was "are the schools in Vermont below the National average?" You made the claim that Vermont schools were below average. I am simply saying that all availalbe data shows a different reality.
All of the data that both you and I came up with, documents that Vermont schools are performing at a level far above the National average.
The facts show that Vermont high schools graduate a far higher percentage of it's high school students, then the National average. The data also shows that these students are testing far better than National averages. Based on these facts, I find it rather hard to believe that Vermont needs wholesale changes in it's educational system. That said, it doesn't mean that there is not room for further inprovement.
If a high school is graduating it's students, and those graduating students are 'on average' scoring much higher than national averages, I don't think it make sense to blame the high school if some of those students choose not to attend college. The high school did its job. If there is a failure anywhere, it lies with the home environment of the student.
Whether or not a student chooses to attend college, is an issue better taken up with the parents of that student, rather than the high schools. I doubt that there are any Vermont students out there that were planning to attend college, before their high school teachers talked them out of it.
Last edited by JaxBlueMan; 06-26-2012 at 07:53 PM..
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.
