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.
I have a pair of friends who grew up together in Baltimore; both went to a decent catholic HS and hated it at the time. Now, however, as both angle to be in the next generation of political leaders/operatives, and as this is a town in which it matters far more where you went to HS than college (much of the city council has no college education) ... it is working to their benefit. I see photos of them smiling on FB at fund raisers for their old alma mater ... and I know better!
"Fix the schools" is reasonable, if also problematic. I think "better schools" would mean attract more academically proficient ("better" suggests some innate superiority of one student vs. another) students, but those tend to come from wealthier families who can afford to spend more time together, spend more time on academics and after-school activities, tutoring etc. So, "fix the schools" really means "attract more successful students" which means, in turn "attract wealthier families." But, those families are finite.
In the end, the solution is to improve the horribly skewed distribution of wealth such that we have a stronger middle class.
Agree to a point. There are some good schools in solidly middle class communities in the burbs. Cities don't need to attract the super wealthy.
But, I didn't mention the top 1% (or the top 10%, for that matter). I specifically said wealthier families, because so many families have so many financial obligations despite having so little real wealth:
Given how weak the bottom 60% is, it's no surprise that parents, even "middle class" ones, cannot afford tutoring, after-school programs, teenage children to not have jobs, etc. Solve the distribution, solve the education "crisis."
But, I didn't mention the top 1% (or the top 10%, for that matter). I specifically said wealthier families, because so many families have so many financial obligations despite having so little real wealth:
Given how weak the bottom 60% is, it's no surprise that parents, even "middle class" ones, cannot afford tutoring, after-school programs, teenage children to not have jobs, etc. Solve the distribution, solve the education "crisis."
I disagree. The school I gave you stats for is not "wealthy", yet has a 93% graduation rate. They have many after-school activities, which they wouldn't have if no one was available to participate in them. When my kids were in high school, not that long ago, virtually all students had some sort of a job, even if they were in sports, music, etc. My kids never needed a tutor, nor did any other kids that I know of. I don't think it's common to "have" to hire a tutor to get through high school these days.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 04-26-2013 at 11:51 AM..
But, I didn't mention the top 1% (or the top 10%, for that matter). I specifically said wealthier families, because so many families have so many financial obligations despite having so little real wealth:
Given how weak the bottom 60% is, it's no surprise that parents, even "middle class" ones, cannot afford tutoring, after-school programs, teenage children to not have jobs, etc. Solve the distribution, solve the education "crisis."
Income is a more sensible comparison than wealth, as other maybe houses, many of those who are not wealthy spend most of their money rather than accumulate wealth.
Income is a more sensible comparison than wealth, as other maybe houses, many of those who are not wealthy spend most of their money rather than accumulate wealth.
I disagree. The school I gave you stats for is not "wealthy", yet has a 93% graduation rate. They have many after-school activities, which they wouldn't have if no one was available to participate in them. When my kids were in high school, not that long ago, virtually all students had some sort of a job, even if they were in sports, music, etc. My kids never needed a tutor, nor did any other kids that I know of. I don't think it's common to "have" to hire a tutor to get through high school these days.
Graduation rate isn't a great way to measure success. More valuable are measures of income in the years following graduation. I'm not saying your example is a "bad" school or that you are misrepresenting your experience. I am saying that I believe these anecdotes to be an inaccurate representation of society overall.
Graduation rate isn't a great way to measure success. More valuable are measures of income in the years following graduation. I'm not saying your example is a "bad" school or that you are misrepresenting your experience. I am saying that I believe these anecdotes to be an inaccurate representation of society overall.
I really have to disagree with the bold. Of course graduation is a great way to measure success in school. While you can go to community college w/o graduating, you can't go to a regular four year college w/o a HS diploma or a GED.
I was not intending to say this school represented society overall. I am saying an area doesn't have to be wealthy to have decent schools. This school has 1/3 of its kids on free/reduced lunches., and an almost 40% minority population. I'm certain there are many other examples, including my own high school. I don't have time to look up the stats right now, but I know the district is among PA's districts that perform "Better than Expected" for SES.
I really have to disagree with the bold. Of course graduation is a great way to measure success in school. While you can go to community college w/o graduating, you can't go to a regular four year college w/o a HS diploma or a GED.
I was not intending to say this school represented society overall. I am saying an area doesn't have to be wealthy to have decent schools. This school has 1/3 of its kids on free/reduced lunches., and an almost 40% minority population. I'm certain there are many other examples, including my own high school. I don't have time to look up the stats right now, but I know the district is among PA's districts that perform "Better than Expected" for SES.
I think he's trying to say HS graduation rates are only part of the puzzle. Past a certain point, (perhaps the 90% mark?) it means relatively little, marginally speaking.
I think he's trying to say HS graduation rates are only part of the puzzle. Past a certain point, (perhaps the 90% mark?) it means relatively little, marginally speaking.
Indeed, that was the case. I should have been clearer on that point.
If one wants to compare parent well-off-ness (income or wealth), it paints a more descriptive picture to use child income following HS. If a child doesn't graduate HS, or graduates but doesn't go on to college, or goes on to college but not a rigorous program, etc., those will show up in incomes as we follow the individual over time. With such data, one could say (and many papers have) how connected or divorced are parent and student "success."
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.
