Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. My kids have gone to MCPS title 1 ES and then magnet programs in ES, MS and HS. In terms of facilities and teachers, MCPS probably gave the most money to the Title 1 school. However, the cohort and parents were as different as day and night.

In the Title 1 school, mainly poor URM kids, FARMS, ESOL, unable to speak the language, new immigrants or poor blacks, poorly educated parents, zero academic support or awareness at home, struggling to survive. There was no way that their situation could be improved because the teachers and school was just trying to make sure that the kids were not hungry and were coming to school so that they could take food home and eat 2 meals.

You don’t think that expensive-to-provide ESL education or meals were improving the situations of the kids who needed it? I do.

Sure, the schools are helping the struggling kids survive and learn a bit along the way, the ones that care anyway.

The bigger point is that the impact of funding is dwarfed by the impact of the parents. Some schools are more effective than others, but at the end of the day, the parents and the home life make the biggest difference.

A kid with a supportive home can usually overcome a few bad teachers. A kid can rarely overcome uninterested parents.

Within a school district (like MCPS) you seem to be correct.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We need to face it - the cream rises to the top, people are poor because they aren’t educated, and they aren’t educated because they aren’t striving to be, and they aren’t striving because their IQ isn’t the highest
Yes genetics isn’t the only factor contributing to income level and probably not even the strongest - but it does contribute to it
It’s a chicken and egg problem

Anonymous wrote:Nope. My kids have gone to MCPS title 1 ES and then magnet programs in ES, MS and HS. In terms of facilities and teachers, MCPS probably gave the most money to the Title 1 school. However, the cohort and parents were as different as day and night.

In the Title 1 school, mainly poor URM kids, FARMS, ESOL, unable to speak the language, new immigrants or poor blacks, poorly educated parents, zero academic support or awareness at home, struggling to survive. There was no way that their situation could be improved because the teachers and school was just trying to make sure that the kids were not hungry and were coming to school so that they could take food home and eat 2 meals.

You don’t think that expensive-to-provide ESL education or meals were improving the situations of the kids who needed it? I do.

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.

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?

Nope. My kids have gone to MCPS title 1 ES and then magnet programs in ES, MS and HS. In terms of facilities and teachers, MCPS probably gave the most money to the Title 1 school. However, the cohort and parents were as different as day and night.

In the Title 1 school, mainly poor URM kids, FARMS, ESOL, unable to speak the language, new immigrants or poor blacks, poorly educated parents, zero academic support or awareness at home, struggling to survive. There was no way that their situation could be improved because the teachers and school was just trying to make sure that the kids were not hungry and were coming to school so that they could take food home and eat 2 meals.

Magnet schools (we were upcounty) were mainly educated Asian immigrants of different SE and White MC and UMC kids in the program. There was a strong impact of the cohort and the parent group on the students. Parents were educated and aware enough to pour their energy into educating their children. It did not matter if we the facilities were no better than a barn or the quality of teachers. The curriculum and the cohort saved the day. MCPS could cruise by.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The PP was just pointing out that more money doesn’t necessarily equal higher academic achievement.

Research confirms this. It’s mostly about the inputs.

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.

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

You probably see a doctor from one of those countries

Who was one of the few lucky enough to escape.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I teach in Baltimore City and we do get paid more than any other MD district. We still have hundreds of vacancies every year despite the higher pay. There’s a high burnout rate because of the behavior issues, low attendance, either checked out or nut case parents, etc. I stay because I need they money.

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.

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

You probably see a doctor from one of those countries

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.

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

I’m thinking that in poorer areas, the school district is spending more money but it’s being spent on different things than in the public school districts in wealthier areas. So in a wealthy area, per capita spending may be lower but the money they are spending can be used for things like nicer facilities, more AP classes, more enrichment opportunities for students, etc because the families in that district can cover the basics so the school spending can be spent more on “extras.” Whereas in a poorer district, they need more $$ per student just to provide free breakfast and lunch to all the kids and to purchase basic school supplies since kids can’t afford them and sometimes teachers in poorer schools get paid more because it’s a less desirable job. Most teachers want to work in wealthier school districts since it’s usually a lower stress job. It’s hard to get good teachers (or any teachers) to want to teach in districts like Baltimore city so presumably a lot of the $$ from their district is being spent on staff.