Is there a big-city school system that is a good model?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is 'no'. No one has figured out how to it on a large scale.

Fairfax County has the 11th largest school system in the country. So, it can be done on a large scale. It is majority minority. It has 26.7% in free/reduced price lunches, many more should be considering the COL. 16% ESOL. It spends much less per student than many city schools and higher class sizes.

I live in a small city where 95+% of students qualify for free or reduced cost lunch and over 30+% are English language learners-once you hit the tipping point where almost all of the children in the system are poor, and middle class families stop seeing public schools as an option, you need an exponential amount of resources to support students.

in smaller cities like dc the middle class families / voters flee to surrounding jurisdictions. Not possible somewhere NYC hence the support for G&T programs.

[Anonymous]

Public employees unions aren't allowed in many parts of the US. They aren't the problem. Poverty is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Public employees unions aren't allowed in many parts of the US. They aren't the problem. Poverty is.

And there it is.

Countries that have the least amount of economic disparity have the highest percentages of high achieving students. Look at Finland and South Korea. When we deal with poverty, we will solve the education problems, DC is the 4th highest in economic disparity in this country. THAT is the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is 'no'. No one has figured out how to it on a large scale.

Because too many union interests get in the way of success.

I will point out that Montgomery County Maryland has a larger school system that Washington, DC and several other cities with not-so-great school systems (Denver). However isnt New York City doing pretty well with running the largest school system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2 things: unions and demographics. Heck look at the demographics of all of those southern states and get back to me.

All of those European countries who outscore us on the international tests have much stronger teaschers' unions than the US.

Interestingly, basic freshman economics points out that unions are economically efficient when there is a monopsonistic employer, in this case the state. Otherwise the monopsonist hires too few people at a wage that is too low compared to a competitive labor market. Freshman economics alsdo points out that you don't attract more competent people to a profession by breaking a union and paying them less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public employees unions aren't allowed in many parts of the US. They aren't the problem. Poverty is.

And there it is.

Countries that have the least amount of economic disparity have the highest percentages of high achieving students. Look at Finland and South Korea. When we deal with poverty, we will solve the education problems, DC is the 4th highest in economic disparity in this country. THAT is the issue.

"Are you saying our poor children can't learn?" It's in quotes because it's not my argument, but it is the one you hear from the reformers when poverty is mentioned. They just won't consider an educational effect due to poverty it, because it detracts from their argument that the way to improve education is to destroy unions and hire young idealistic teachers who believe that they can overcome the effects of poverty.

The fact that it hasn't worked and the evidence around the world does not support this theory does not seem to deter them. Why is that? Are all these idealists in denial? Do they stop being idealists after a while and become self-preservationists? Who is helping them to preserve their jobs and their self-image despite no advantage to the poor children they supposedly care so much about?