Top Schools or Top Students??

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mtbr1975. Show mtbr1975's posts

    Top Schools or Top Students??

    So are you suggesting that we bus poorer, minority students into these rich white communities?
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from thirtysomething. Show thirtysomething's posts

    Top Schools or Top Students??

    WVW, why must it be one or the other?� The schools in the rich suburban communities ARE generally more supportive.� They offer smaller classes, more personal attention, fewer disruptions, and an academic-focused culture that helps to carry students along.� A huge part of it is the students who attend the schools, but they wouldn't be nearly so successful if you scattered them in more (socio-economically) diverse communities.� A class is only as strong as its weakest link.

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from thirtysomething. Show thirtysomething's posts

    Top Schools or Top Students??

    The socio-ecunomic profiles of the student populations were nearlyidentical, yet the parochial schools had consistantly better outcomesthan the public schools.

    All that means is that they didn't profile the factors that differentiate the two.� While wealth and education are associated with attitudes towards school and learning, they aren't the same thing.� The children at the parochial schools are more likely to have parents who care enough to make sacrifices for their kids' education.

    Try profiling on other factors.� How many books are in the home?� Willingness to attend parent/teacher conferences?� Truancy?� The simplistic profiles might be identical, but the populations are not.

    On top of that the per student spending in parochial schools was 1/3 ( yes less than half) that of public schools.

    A difference of that magnitude is only possible if the parochial schools depend heavily on volunteer labor (e.g. religious orders, parental volunteers) or if parish subsidies (perhaps for maintaining the facilities) are not included.� Many teachers are willing to accept lower pay at a parochial or private school than they could get at a public school, but the difference isn't THAT large.� If it were, they couldn't afford to eat.

    it sure makes one wonder about how much educational good all thecounselors, curriculum coordinators, vice-principals, and unioncontracts are doing for our kids??

    Does it follow the Pareto principle?� Eighty percent of the time (and money) is spent on twenty percent of the population?� Perhaps the disparity isn't quite THAT large, however some students are very expensive to serve.� Those with severe learning or behavioral disabilities (special ed is often the largest and most expensive department in a high school).� Discipline problems (there are your vice principals).� Those with family issues that preclude attention to learning (money spent on social counselors).� Those who simply don't care (money spent on academic counselors).

    These "problem cases" will naturally serve to pull down performance metrics while dramatically boosting the expense.� Looking at averages over the entire population, rather than individual cases, obscures this simple fact.� The parochial schools are free to expel students they feel they are not prepared to serve.� The public schools must admit those students, absorb the expense, and do their best to minimize the disruption to the rest of the school population.

    Needless to say, the wealthier suburban communities have a much lower problem-to-resource ratio.� Thus they can throw vastly more resources at the difficult cases that they DO have, with far less disruption to the general student body.� It isn't true that they have NO difficult cases, just that there are more than enough resources to deal with those exceptions.