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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally disagree. I'm from one of those NJ schools. Huge PTA donations were not really a thing 20 yrs ago (and the school disparities were very much there).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally disagree. I'm from one of those NJ schools. Huge PTA donations were not really a thing 20 yrs ago (and the school disparities were very much there).

They’re a thing now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally disagree. I'm from one of those NJ schools. Huge PTA donations were not really a thing 20 yrs ago (and the school disparities were very much there).

They’re a thing now.

Sure. But my point is the same disparities between these schools based on SES has existed for decades, despite spending per student being much higher in the poorer schools. And until recently, the $ gap.was not made up by huge PTA funding. So the quality of the school is not all about incoming $, there are a lot of other factors as various PPs have pointed out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? Do their parents care about their education, discipline them and correct their behavior, teach them to follow directions and respect their teachers, work with them at home every night? That is what determines good schools. Not how much money you throw at the school.

Those states have terrible schools.

NP. That’s the point. Are you really not following the logic? Were you educated in one of those states?

No, you’re the one who isn’t following. People on here were insisting that money doesn’t matter and that the best school districts spend the least, and that the worst school districts spend the most. Obviously, that’s a load of crap. See those states listed above.

No, people aren’t saying the best schools spend the least. People are saying the best schools are the ones where students and their families value education. That happens to coincide with districts where the families have more money- but the money isn’t what makes the schools great. It is a student body there to learn, capable of learning, a parents at home that support and supplement that learning. Not money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? Do their parents care about their education, discipline them and correct their behavior, teach them to follow directions and respect their teachers, work with them at home every night? That is what determines good schools. Not how much money you throw at the school.

Those states have terrible schools.

NP. That’s the point. Are you really not following the logic? Were you educated in one of those states?

No, you’re the one who isn’t following. People on here were insisting that money doesn’t matter and that the best school districts spend the least, and that the worst school districts spend the most. Obviously, that’s a load of crap. See those states listed above.

No, people aren’t saying the best schools spend the least. People are saying the best schools are the ones where students and their families value education. That happens to coincide with districts where the families have more money- but the money isn’t what makes the schools great. It is a student body there to learn, capable of learning, a parents at home that support and supplement that learning. Not money.

"Happens to coincidence with districts where the families have more money" is the understatement of the year. What gives parents the liberty of providing unencumbered parental support and supplements for learning? Money. Well-paying jobs. Whether it's paying for tutoring, or paying for enrichments like sports and museums. Or having a cushy job that allows parents to be at home often during traditional hours to read to their kids and in general manage their child's early education to instill a love of learning. It's always about money and the freedom money provides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? Do their parents care about their education, discipline them and correct their behavior, teach them to follow directions and respect their teachers, work with them at home every night? That is what determines good schools. Not how much money you throw at the school.

Those states have terrible schools.

NP. That’s the point. Are you really not following the logic? Were you educated in one of those states?

No, you’re the one who isn’t following. People on here were insisting that money doesn’t matter and that the best school districts spend the least, and that the worst school districts spend the most. Obviously, that’s a load of crap. See those states listed above.

No, people aren’t saying the best schools spend the least. People are saying the best schools are the ones where students and their families value education. That happens to coincide with districts where the families have more money- but the money isn’t what makes the schools great. It is a student body there to learn, capable of learning, a parents at home that support and supplement that learning. Not money.

"Happens to coincidence with districts where the families have more money" is the understatement of the year. What gives parents the liberty of providing unencumbered parental support and supplements for learning? Money. Well-paying jobs. Whether it's paying for tutoring, or paying for enrichments like sports and museums. Or having a cushy job that allows parents to be at home often during traditional hours to read to their kids and in general manage their child's early education to instill a love of learning. It's always about money and the freedom money provides.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? Do their parents care about their education, discipline them and correct their behavior, teach them to follow directions and respect their teachers, work with them at home every night? That is what determines good schools. Not how much money you throw at the school.

Those states have terrible schools.

NP. That’s the point. Are you really not following the logic? Were you educated in one of those states?

No, you’re the one who isn’t following. People on here were insisting that money doesn’t matter and that the best school districts spend the least, and that the worst school districts spend the most. Obviously, that’s a load of crap. See those states listed above.

No, people aren’t saying the best schools spend the least. People are saying the best schools are the ones where students and their families value education. That happens to coincide with districts where the families have more money- but the money isn’t what makes the schools great. It is a student body there to learn, capable of learning, a parents at home that support and supplement that learning. Not money.

What a coincidence! Or maybe not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? Do their parents care about their education, discipline them and correct their behavior, teach them to follow directions and respect their teachers, work with them at home every night? That is what determines good schools. Not how much money you throw at the school.

Those states have terrible schools.

NP. That’s the point. Are you really not following the logic? Were you educated in one of those states?

No, you’re the one who isn’t following. People on here were insisting that money doesn’t matter and that the best school districts spend the least, and that the worst school districts spend the most. Obviously, that’s a load of crap. See those states listed above.

No, people aren’t saying the best schools spend the least. People are saying the best schools are the ones where students and their families value education. That happens to coincide with districts where the families have more money- but the money isn’t what makes the schools great. It is a student body there to learn, capable of learning, a parents at home that support and supplement that learning. Not money.

What a coincidence! Or maybe not.

Also a coincidence that throwing more money at failing schools doesn’t actually make the kids smarter, learn better, or improve test scores. Because it isn’t the school that is the problem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? Do their parents care about their education, discipline them and correct their behavior, teach them to follow directions and respect their teachers, work with them at home every night? That is what determines good schools. Not how much money you throw at the school.

Those states have terrible schools.

NP. That’s the point. Are you really not following the logic? Were you educated in one of those states?

No, you’re the one who isn’t following. People on here were insisting that money doesn’t matter and that the best school districts spend the least, and that the worst school districts spend the most. Obviously, that’s a load of crap. See those states listed above.

No, people aren’t saying the best schools spend the least. People are saying the best schools are the ones where students and their families value education. That happens to coincide with districts where the families have more money- but the money isn’t what makes the schools great. It is a student body there to learn, capable of learning, a parents at home that support and supplement that learning. Not money.

"Happens to coincidence with districts where the families have more money" is the understatement of the year. What gives parents the liberty of providing unencumbered parental support and supplements for learning? Money. Well-paying jobs. Whether it's paying for tutoring, or paying for enrichments like sports and museums. Or having a cushy job that allows parents to be at home often during traditional hours to read to their kids and in general manage their child's early education to instill a love of learning. It's always about money and the freedom money provides.

What do you think a comparison of the academic performance between poor Asian families and rich white families would reveal?

[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

Why aren’t Lee or Edison HSs in FCPS thriving then? Full of refugees

Reform Jewish kids, Indian Hindus, South Koreans and Han Chinese are not refugees. You sound like an ignorant achievement gap apologist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? Do their parents care about their education, discipline them and correct their behavior, teach them to follow directions and respect their teachers, work with them at home every night? That is what determines good schools. Not how much money you throw at the school.

Those states have terrible schools.

NP. That’s the point. Are you really not following the logic? Were you educated in one of those states?

No, you’re the one who isn’t following. People on here were insisting that money doesn’t matter and that the best school districts spend the least, and that the worst school districts spend the most. Obviously, that’s a load of crap. See those states listed above.

No, people aren’t saying the best schools spend the least. [/b]People are saying the best schools are the ones where students and their families value education. That happens to coincide with districts where the families have more money- but the money isn’t what makes the schools great[b]. It is a student body there to learn, capable of learning, a parents at home that support and supplement that learning. Not money.

Sigh. This is the point that is whizzing over your head. It’s not “happens to.”

[Anonymous]

I work for a school district and have been trying to explain to people that there aren’t many differences between the “good” and “bad” schools in a city. They use the same curriculum and the facilities are about the same. The only difference is the home experience of the majority of the students. A lot of money gets spent on intervention and supplementary curricular resources for students below grade level, but no amount of money on online programs and workbooks will change the fact that at some schools, a large portion of kids will go home and not have food to eat, not have their own bed to sleep on, be physically and verbally abused, be woken up by violence, etc.

[Anonymous]

Because they don’t understand how schools and education work. I’ve worked in education in varying capacities since 1999, including teaching in DC public schools, and now have 3 kids in public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because they don’t understand how schools and education work. I’ve worked in education in varying capacities since 1999, including teaching in DC public schools, and now have 3 kids in public school.

Me again - and my big takeaway from all this experience is in this country we want schools to solve all the problems of poverty and it’s way too big of an ask.

[Anonymous]

Poor people have no idea how much the rich spend to avoid being around them. Wealthy people pay a tax in the form of increased property expense to specifically not live around people who aren’t wealthy. The vector forces driving a good public school are clusters of successful families sending their children to the same school. If you are a poor person, the very best thing you can do for your child absent internal family stability is living in a neighborhood where most people have college degrees and work in successful professions. The school standards are set by the aggregate expectations of the parents, which is why the highest performing public elementary school in California is in the most successful tech neighborhood and 97% Asian.