Why does everyone pretend school quality is about the school itself?

[Anonymous]

Having many poor kids in a school makes it bad - not because poor kids are somehow bad but because the stress they live under and their parents’ genetics and level of education and values and habits are just… not optimal. No matter the race.
Of course there will be outliers
Also, even if a school is great in terms of scores -
Who wants their kid to be one of the few there in terms of looks and personality? So traditional high performing schools with a non diverse demographic are not necessarily good

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only PART of the reason, OP. The other parts are:

1. Funding, management and educational direction of the school system.

2. In wealthy neighborhoods, parental pressure acting alongside teachers and staff looking to be hired in those schools, that work towards keeping the best teachers at those locations.

There are some incredibly well-funded failing schools in this country.

I believe you. All the parts need to work together. Perhaps they're not managed well.

Yes. I think NYC spends more per student capita than anywhere in the country and the outcome requires remedial community college classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever been to Connecticut? New Jersey? Pennsylvania?

Give me 50 reform Jewish kids, Hindus, Koreans and han Chinese — all from two parent households and all I need is a photocopier, an overhead projector from the 80s and a one room School house / even with dirt floors.

It would be one of the highest scoring schools in the north east

What’s Han Chinese and what’s wrong with the other kind

China is a big country, and it has ethnicities that don’t look “Chinese” like the Uyghurs. Han Chinese is the predominant ethnicity. They are the ones you think of when you hear “Chinese.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only PART of the reason, OP. The other parts are:

1. Funding, management and educational direction of the school system.

2. In wealthy neighborhoods, parental pressure acting alongside teachers and staff looking to be hired in those schools, that work towards keeping the best teachers at those locations.

There are some incredibly well-funded failing schools in this country.

I believe you. All the parts need to work together. Perhaps they're not managed well.

Yes. I think NYC spends more per student capita than anywhere in the country and the outcome requires remedial community college classes.

It’s the most expensive city in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only PART of the reason, OP. The other parts are:

1. Funding, management and educational direction of the school system.

2. In wealthy neighborhoods, parental pressure acting alongside teachers and staff looking to be hired in those schools, that work towards keeping the best teachers at those locations.

There are some incredibly well-funded failing schools in this country.

There's a point where no amount of money will make a difference. The underlying issue is families and values, which the state cannot legislate.

Nevertheless, even at some moderate to high FARMs schools, there are sufficiently large groups of high-performing students. Sure, an affluent school may have 8 sections of AP English whereas the higher FARMs school may have 3 but the same kid would do fine in either school since their success has more to do with family values and parental education.

Values. Ha. What an obnoxious attitude.

They track performance of kids who are from economically challenged families. Their performance varies greatly based on the school.

Name an example where a school has truly succeeded with economically challenged families. Schools in NYC and LA have tried but nobody has solved the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever been to Connecticut? New Jersey? Pennsylvania?

Give me 50 reform Jewish kids, Hindus, Koreans and han Chinese — all from two parent households and all I need is a photocopier, an overhead projector from the 80s and a one room School house / even with dirt floors.

It would be one of the highest scoring schools in the north east

Too bad. You don't get to exclude the Haredim.

Yes but the Haredim get to exclude you👍

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only PART of the reason, OP. The other parts are:

1. Funding, management and educational direction of the school system.

2. In wealthy neighborhoods, parental pressure acting alongside teachers and staff looking to be hired in those schools, that work towards keeping the best teachers at those locations.

There are some incredibly well-funded failing schools in this country.

There's a point where no amount of money will make a difference. The underlying issue is families and values, which the state cannot legislate.

Nevertheless, even at some moderate to high FARMs schools, there are sufficiently large groups of high-performing students. Sure, an affluent school may have 8 sections of AP English whereas the higher FARMs school may have 3 but the same kid would do fine in either school since their success has more to do with family values and parental education.

Values. Ha. What an obnoxious attitude.

They track performance of kids who are from economically challenged families. Their performance varies greatly based on the school.

Name an example where a school has truly succeeded with economically challenged families. Schools in NYC and LA have tried but nobody has solved the issue.

Go to your local hospital and look at all the black and brown faces of people who grew up in absolute poverty in a developing nation and now have advanced degrees and are upper middle class professionals. Most succeeded due to a family driven culture of high expectations and standards and pens, papers and textbooks for resources in addition to a government funded education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only PART of the reason, OP. The other parts are:

1. Funding, management and educational direction of the school system.

2. In wealthy neighborhoods, parental pressure acting alongside teachers and staff looking to be hired in those schools, that work towards keeping the best teachers at those locations.

There are some incredibly well-funded failing schools in this country.

There's a point where no amount of money will make a difference. The underlying issue is families and values, which the state cannot legislate.

Nevertheless, even at some moderate to high FARMs schools, there are sufficiently large groups of high-performing students. Sure, an affluent school may have 8 sections of AP English whereas the higher FARMs school may have 3 but the same kid would do fine in either school since their success has more to do with family values and parental education.

Values. Ha. What an obnoxious attitude.

They track performance of kids who are from economically challenged families. Their performance varies greatly based on the school.

Name an example where a school has truly succeeded with economically challenged families. Schools in NYC and LA have tried but nobody has solved the issue.

The OP said “why does anybody pretend school quality is about the actual school itself?” I am responding to that question. I’m sure you acknowledge that there are varying degrees of school quality. While the SES of the students does impact how successful an individual school is on measures like standardized test scores and college readiness, that is *not* the only factor. A school that has high expectations for academic performance, quality teachers, and a good handle on student behavior is also going to impact the test scores and college readiness of students. Good teachers and principals really do make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only PART of the reason, OP. The other parts are:

1. Funding, management and educational direction of the school system.

2. In wealthy neighborhoods, parental pressure acting alongside teachers and staff looking to be hired in those schools, that work towards keeping the best teachers at those locations.

There are some incredibly well-funded failing schools in this country.

There's a point where no amount of money will make a difference. The underlying issue is families and values, which the state cannot legislate.

Nevertheless, even at some moderate to high FARMs schools, there are sufficiently large groups of high-performing students. Sure, an affluent school may have 8 sections of AP English whereas the higher FARMs school may have 3 but the same kid would do fine in either school since their success has more to do with family values and parental education.

Values. Ha. What an obnoxious attitude.

They track performance of kids who are from economically challenged families. Their performance varies greatly based on the school.

Name an example where a school has truly succeeded with economically challenged families. Schools in NYC and LA have tried but nobody has solved the issue.

The OP said “why does anybody pretend school quality is about the actual school itself?” I am responding to that question. I’m sure you acknowledge that there are varying degrees of school quality. While the SES of the students does impact how successful an individual school is on measures like standardized test scores and college readiness, that is *not* the only factor. A school that has high expectations for academic performance, quality teachers, and a good handle on student behavior is also going to impact the test scores and college readiness of students. Good teachers and principals really do make a difference.

ok, but has any district actually accomplished that?

[Anonymous]

This may not be present within major coastal cities, but go to places like Detroit, Grand Rapids, St. Louis, Birmingham (AL) or Pittsburgh and look at the city schools vs suburban schools. There are GLARING disparities present in those places when you compare the cities and their suburbs with regards to funding that absolutely affect student outcomes: amount of sports offered, extracurriculars present, having or not having sports fields, having or not having textbooks, amount of paper products available (such as toilet paper), building conditions (crumbling buildings in the cities), transportation offered, water cleanliness and so on.

[Anonymous]

Because your kids are more likely to get a good education at a public school with high SES kids. I wish it wasn't true but it is. My kids are in a school that is about 40% FARMS and serving those kids takes up so much time/energy/focus. My kids and kids like them are just not a priority. Plus there are little things. Like my kids take private music lessons, which most kids can't afford, so my kids are way ahead of the other kids in music and hence are completely bored even though the music teacher switched them to the advanced orchestra that is primarily for kids two+ years older than them. That would not happen if we lived in Darien, CT. My kids are not super talented - we can just afford private instruction and have the family structure to ensure they practice daily (which is easier to do when you live in a house vs an apartment with shared walls). Not to mention that the English teacher is not assigning a single novel this year for 6th grade because it is too much for the students. So we have to supplement at home, which just makes the achievement gap worse. Rinse and repeat.

[Anonymous]

I agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because your kids are more likely to get a good education at a public school with high SES kids. I wish it wasn't true but it is. My kids are in a school that is about 40% FARMS and serving those kids takes up so much time/energy/focus. My kids and kids like them are just not a priority. Plus there are little things. Like my kids take private music lessons, which most kids can't afford, so my kids are way ahead of the other kids in music and hence are completely bored even though the music teacher switched them to the advanced orchestra that is primarily for kids two+ years older than them. That would not happen if we lived in Darien, CT. My kids are not super talented - we can just afford private instruction and have the family structure to ensure they practice daily (which is easier to do when you live in a house vs an apartment with shared walls). Not to mention that the English teacher is not assigning a single novel this year for 6th grade because it is too much for the students. So we have to supplement at home, which just makes the achievement gap worse. Rinse and repeat.

Yup, low expectations. It has been the single worst crime of education.

[Anonymous]

Of course a school is partly about the students. The students help make up the community. without kids, the school is just a building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In states with town-based school districts, the better (richer) school districts have better facilities, more classes to offer and better everything else. And they may have a lot more funding than the town next-door.

Nope. NJ, CT etc - poor schools have way more funding per student..it's all public info.