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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Accomplished what? Those three things I mentioned? Yes, there are school districts across the SES spectrum who have done that. And there are schools who have only 25% FARMS rates who haven’t and the kids suffer no matter how much their parents make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not when you take into account PTA donations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Absolutely not true in CT.

[Anonymous]

Agree. It is nearly 100 percent about the student, their family, and parental support at home.

Countries that spend way way less on education produce better students.

My husband went to a private school in a very poor country. It was not an expensive school, but it was filled with middle class families that really cared and valued education. They had extremely basic materials; pencils, paper, text books, chalk boards, desk. There was no school gymnasium/auditorium. No sports fields, no after school clubs, no science Olympiad, no field trips, no PTA organizing cookie exchanges, staff lunches, assemblies, etc. They didn’t have spirit week, homecoming, prom and all the stuff US schools do and spend money on. School would be cancelled for weeks at a time due to ongoing political conflicts. Yet he and many of his classmates managed to become highly successful with lucrative careers and now live in the US. It isn’t money that makes a good school, it the values and discipline of the students and their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Teacher here. This is the reason my kid no longer goes to public school. Public schools may have high standards but the expectations are pretty low. Show up, hand in work that meets the standard and you get an A. Meanwhile, in my son's private school, if he did the same thing, he'd probably get a C or D. At my public school, they are practically begging kids to even come to school. Every month we have incentives for attendance. Only in America where education is free do people not take advantage of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Your views on the "not optimal" genetics of poor kids does make you sound like a eugenicist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. It is nearly 100 percent about the student, their family, and parental support at home.

Countries that spend way way less on education produce better students.

My husband went to a private school in a very poor country. It was not an expensive school, but it was filled with middle class families that really cared and valued education. They had extremely basic materials; pencils, paper, text books, chalk boards, desk. There was no school gymnasium/auditorium. No sports fields, no after school clubs, no science Olympiad, no field trips, no PTA organizing cookie exchanges, staff lunches, assemblies, etc. They didn’t have spirit week, homecoming, prom and all the stuff US schools do and spend money on. School would be cancelled for weeks at a time due to ongoing political conflicts. Yet he and many of his classmates managed to become highly successful with lucrative careers and now live in the US. It isn’t money that makes a good school, it the values and discipline of the students and their families.

Did special needs students attend? What about families that couldn’t afford to pay the fees—were they able to attend?

Do you send your kids to a bare-bones school like that, now? If not, why?

[Anonymous]

Gotta love these posters sending their kids to $50,000/year private schools or public schools that have teams for every sport, every advanced class, school trips etc saying “money doesn’t matter.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. It is nearly 100 percent about the student, their family, and parental support at home.

Countries that spend way way less on education produce better students.

My husband went to a private school in a very poor country. It was not an expensive school, but it was filled with middle class families that really cared and valued education. They had extremely basic materials; pencils, paper, text books, chalk boards, desk. There was no school gymnasium/auditorium. No sports fields, no after school clubs, no science Olympiad, no field trips, no PTA organizing cookie exchanges, staff lunches, assemblies, etc. They didn’t have spirit week, homecoming, prom and all the stuff US schools do and spend money on. School would be cancelled for weeks at a time due to ongoing political conflicts. Yet he and many of his classmates managed to become highly successful with lucrative careers and now live in the US. It isn’t money that makes a good school, it the values and discipline of the students and their families.

Why aren’t those countries on top of the world, then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. It is nearly 100 percent about the student, their family, and parental support at home.

Countries that spend way way less on education produce better students.

My husband went to a private school in a very poor country. It was not an expensive school, but it was filled with middle class families that really cared and valued education. They had extremely basic materials; pencils, paper, text books, chalk boards, desk. There was no school gymnasium/auditorium. No sports fields, no after school clubs, no science Olympiad, no field trips, no PTA organizing cookie exchanges, staff lunches, assemblies, etc. They didn’t have spirit week, homecoming, prom and all the stuff US schools do and spend money on. School would be cancelled for weeks at a time due to ongoing political conflicts. Yet he and many of his classmates managed to become highly successful with lucrative careers and now live in the US. It isn’t money that makes a good school, it the values and discipline of the students and their families.

WV, MS, AR, LA, KY and AL spend little per student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Accomplished what? Those three things I mentioned? Yes, there are school districts across the SES spectrum who have done that. And there are schools who have only 25% FARMS rates who haven’t and the kids suffer no matter how much their parents make.

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.

What district has very high SES and has managed to have high expectations for academic performance, quality teachers, and a good handle on student behavior that result in high test scores and college readiness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love these posters sending their kids to $50,000/year private schools or public schools that have teams for every sport, every advanced class, school trips etc saying “money doesn’t matter.”

DC spends more money per capita that any of the NOVA districts. Baltimore City outspends Howards and MoCo. The extra money doesn't seem to matter much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And not the type of families who send their kids to that school? 95% of whether a school is considered "good" or not has nothing to do with how big their budget is. Good students make a school good, not the other way around.

This sounds about right for FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love these posters sending their kids to $50,000/year private schools or public schools that have teams for every sport, every advanced class, school trips etc saying “money doesn’t matter.”

DC spends more money per capita that any of the NOVA districts. Baltimore City outspends Howards and MoCo. The extra money doesn't seem to matter much

So why aren’t you sending your kid to a public school with low spending per student? I certainly hope you’re not sending them to private school!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love these posters sending their kids to $50,000/year private schools or public schools that have teams for every sport, every advanced class, school trips etc saying “money doesn’t matter.”

DC spends more money per capita that any of the NOVA districts. Baltimore City outspends Howards and MoCo. The extra money doesn't seem to matter much

Because Baltimore has a WAY needier population than HoCo. Additionally, as for teacher salaries, you have to pay well to entice a teacher to teach in a difficult school district.