<p>As Harry Truman said: I don’t give 'em hell, I just tell the truth.</p>
<p>Detroit schools spend more per pupil than the suburban districts in my area, and the schools are abysmal. It is more than just money, but I do agree that many of our children are not well-served by their schools.</p>
<p>Top colleges serve top students. Do we expect them to lower their standards? They already look at students holistically, accepting some kids who would not get a second look were they from another station in life. Should they accept students who would not otherwise be accepted, just because some view these schools as … I don’t know, I guess “too elite?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, you really got me! But no, you didn’t. While these are problems, I have yet to encounter anything to think that these are all systematic problems within schools. I guess small problems can add up, but I doubt these are all problems people have to face.</p>
<p>Let’s look at the points.</p>
<p>Point one: I think this happens, but I doubt it’s a systematic issue. Also, if a school is so small, they may only need to hire one teacher. I’d like to see a better context for this issue. Even a few anecdotes would suffice. I guess since you’re from a rural area, you see this happening?</p>
<p>Point two: I’m not sure how pervasive large class sizes are, but I don’t think class sizes are even that huge at the worst schools. My high school has 19 students per teacher. At random to compare, I picked one of the worse Metro high schools, and it had 16 students per teacher. So clearly large class sizes by themselves aren’t the cause of the problem there.</p>
<p>Point three: I think a lack of art education is terrible (although I didn’t receive any past elementary school, poor me), but I don’t think that’s the cause of our low test scores, either nationally or internationally.</p>
<p>Point four: Why in the world would adding honors/AP classes cost money? It costs the same for a teacher to teach English honors and standard. Does AP have some unknown licensing fee? Also, teachers get no benefits for teaching AP classes. I think what causes a lack of AP classes (besides some of the lab-based ones) is a lack of demand.</p>
<p>Point five: I think it is a real problem to not have electives and offer a wider range of education, but again, I don’t think that’s the cause of our low test scores. Also, the only real elective I took in high school was a music class, which was required to satisfied an art requirement. Also, why is it more expensive to higher a math teacher to teach beyond precal? I would think that most math teachers would be math majors, so the math subjects they teach would be interchangable. (And no, it actually isn’t more expensive to hire a math teacher that actually has a math degree)</p>
<p>Point six: I’m not much of the lobbying type. 
</p>
<p>You can go around with these emotionally-charged points, but they actually make no sense when you think about it.</p>
<p>“You can go around with these emotionally-charged points, but they actually make no sense when you think about it.”</p>
<p>That’s for sure. You can try to generalize a situation in an obviously small or rural school, but very few people are going to buy that is the norm in any school district, poor or not, to have one English teacher, one teacher for all the sciences and one half time art teacher in a school. What are all the other teachers teaching, PE?</p>
<p>There is one subset of middle class/working class students with a large proportion of members who generally do perform as well as the wealthy in the academic arena. This is the subset composed of Asian-American middle class/working class students. But when these students compete with wealthy students for admission to elite universities, they are often called “robots” or “uninteresting” because their parents could not afford to provide them with opportunities to become engaged in quirky or otherwise unusual EC’s or to become extremely polished and socially able. Hmmm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every single one of these points is currently the case at my home town’s school district (which is why I pay to send DD to a math and science magnet boarding school and DS to a Catholic high school, even though we’re not Catholic). And they are very common in rural America, at least the corner of rural America where I live.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We used to have two science teachers (one for bio/gen science, the other physics/chem). We can no longer afford them. We turn over the one remaining science teacher about every two years, because doing four preps a day burns teachers out. And no teacher (at least none we can afford) is qualified to teach all three of the major sciences and do it competently. Our current teacher was a chem major who had one one-semester college bio course and is now teaching HS bio. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is one English section per grade. One class has 41 students. We used to half one and a half English teachers; the second teacher also taught French. Now we have just one (and no French).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not focusing on test scores, but on quality of education, which is far more than test scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When you can only afford enough teachers to teach one section of each subject per grade, you can’t offer honors or AP sections.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same answers as above: it’s more than test scores, and when you don’t have enough math teachers, you can’t offer advanced classes. We did have two math teachers; now we have one plus a half-timer (and a junior high math teacher who covers one section of HS math).</p>
<p>People from (relatively speaking) wealthy suburban school districts have no idea how the rest of us live.</p>
<p>“And starbright has hit the primary culprit on the head: property tax as the principal method of funding schools. In the county I live in, there are two adjacent school districts. Live in one, pay a property tax rate of about $3.30, and send your kid to schools that have about $19,000 to spend per student. Live across the district line, pay a tax rate of over $8, and send you kid to schools that have about $11,000 per student. (The first district is home to a nuclear generating station and a lot of very productive farmland; the second district consists solely of a small lower-middle-class city.)”</p>
<p>Are you implying the lower funded school is inadequate and the higher adequate?</p>
<p>In my town the median house is over $500K and average per pupil spending is in the 8K,
and my kids got a fine education. Our high school had every choice one could imagine. </p>
<p>Of course there are plenty of parents who think their kids didn’t get good educations, but they didn’t do their part as parents.</p>
<p>Who do you think is more likely to become a NMF (top 1%)? Child of rich but average IQ parents who send him/her to expensive private schools, hire tutors, pay for enrichment activities, travel, etc. OR a poor unschooled child who can read well, do math, whose parents spent little on enrichment besides buying a test prep book–but both parents had been NMFs themselves? I’d bet on kid #2. Smart kids come from smart parents. It’s mostly genetic, imo</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All what other teachers? You can buy this, or not, but our local high school has (for about 120 students):</p>
<p>1 English teacher
1 1/2 math teachers
1 Social Studies teacher
1 Science teacher
1 Spanish teacher
1 (three-quarters time) business ed teacher
2 special ed teachers</p>
<p>and shares with the K-8 grades:</p>
<p>2 PE teachers (state mandates PE for every student every day)
1 music teacher (band + very minimal elementary music program)
1 half-time art teacher</p>
<p>Vocational track kids go to a regional vocational ed school half days.</p>
<p>This year the K-12 district is projecting a $400,000 deficit on a budget of just under $6 million.</p>
<p>The closest neighboring district, even smaller (about 95 HS kids), is similar - they have just one HS math teacher, but a full-time K-12 art teacher.</p>
<p>And, for those who don’t buy the anonymous posting of such shocking statistics on the Internet, here’s a nearby similarly sized high school that is a little bit better off financially than we are (because they’re getting tax revenue from some wind farms):</p>
<p>[High</a> School Staff | Paw Paw CUSD 271](<a href=“http://2paws.net/high-school-staff]High”>http://2paws.net/high-school-staff)</p>
<p>Note 1 science teacher, 1-1/2 English teachers, part-time guidance counselor, 1 Spanish teacher, 2 math teachers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m implying that the kids in the better-funded school have far more opportunities available than those in the lower-funded school. I have reported on school board meetings in both districts. In the one, the conversations revolve around “what will we have to cut” - in the other, around “how can we improve what we’re doing for our kids.”</p>
<p>Ok, seeing how you’re from a rural area, I can see what your problem is. I think being understaffed is a huge problem that money can fix. However, I was thinking more towards inner city high schools and mediocre suburban high schools that do not have staffing issues. Increasing the number of teachers there would do little to improve education there, imo, as adding teachers has diminishing returns.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many of those low-performing districts with high per capita spending on education waste the money on bureaucracy and use school funding as a mechanism to draw more people into the middle class (see Washington, D.C. in my area). Certainly increasing social mobility is a worthy idea, but not with dollars meant for educating children. </p>
<p>Also, although we can all name our favorite wasteful school districts, that does not change the fact that the vast, vast majority of the nation’s top ranked high schools are either private schools with substantial tuition and endowments, public high schools in wealthy districts, or magnet schools that draw the best and the brightest and are generally lavishly funded as the pride of the community. </p>
<p>How many of the best performing schools as measured by SAT scores or numbers of AP/IB classes taken can claim to be under funded? My guess is probably none and certainly not more than a percent or two. Money in education is important and buys the best teachers and opportunities. The power of money is why wealthy, well educated parents move to the best school districts or spend tens of thousands for top-ranked private schools. Those parents also constantly give their children the best opportunities (as well they should), and their children score substantially higher by most measures than those with much less advantages (as well they should). </p>
<p>Then into this uneven system comes standardized testing (not an IQ test) that purports to give a few numbers that measure a child’s worthiness to attend the best schools, but in reality rewards those with the most resources and predicts only the chances of success in the first year and not overall potential. </p>
<p>The only way to change the system is to compare children with similar opportunities with each other and not against those with much fewer opportunities. After all, we do not compare a Porsche with a Civic but against a Ferrari. Nor do we compare an Olympian with a special Olympian. But when it comes to education many people do make comparisons among those with unequal opportunities, which is then buttressed by USNWR and similar rankings that look favorably on schools with the best resources and highest SAT scores. Attempts to change the system (or even tweak it a bit) are then thwarted because doing so will lower the overall ranking of a school and drive current students and alums crazy.</p>
<p>So what is the solution? Nothing is perfect, but in my view a few steps in the right direction would include moving away from standardized testing as some schools are starting to do already, looking at how children have taken advantage of their opportunities by comparing kids form elite schools against each other (and not against kids from under performing schools who should be compared against other kids form those schools), and focusing more on in-person interviews, leadership skills, and community service.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with this scenarios is just like the answer to the question: ‘is it better to earn a B in an AP course, or an A in a college prep course?’ The answer is neither. It’s better to earn an A in an AP course.</p>
<p>Similarly, the child most likely to become NMF is child of rich and above average IQ parents…there are thousands of them to go around. And of course, these are the students that pack into the tippy top colleges.</p>
<p>
That depends on what criteria “they” are accepting students on, kelsmom. Does having gone to Kenya to teach English to rural children between Junior and Senior years of HS make student C more worthy of acceptance than student B who spent that same summer washing dishes and dodging bullets in a ghetto? Or student M who spent his summer riding his bike, reading books, and camping with his friends? </p>
<p>Apparently it does, which is part of the author’s point. As a measure of C’s ability to be a good college student, increase diversity, or be a worthy contributing citizen after his college years, not so much.</p>
<p>I always enjoy reading Neal Gabler. Thanks, OP, for the link, I missed the original article.</p>
<p>This seems to be the nub of Gabler’s problem with 1% education:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The emphasis on personal achievement has done more than turn the admissions process into a race to rack up r</p>
<p>Here is another look at the underfunding issue: Let’s say I had to go to an inner-city high school, which some people here think is worse funded than my suburban high school. Ignoring crime and cultural issues (which can’t be fixed by school funding anyways), I don’t think I’d do too bad.</p>
<p>First of all, let’s compare the academics between the two schools. Yes, my school has a lot of AP classes that wouldn’t be found at an inner-city school. But it also has students who want to take them. (But I think having a TOTAL lack of AP classes actually isn’t a problem) I think the real problem would be that classroom disruption would get worse and there would be overall less engagement, whether it be caused by personal problems, having a job, or apathy. </p>
<p>But as for the teachers, I don’t think that the ones at my high school are inherently better. Yes, teachers at lower income high schools leave more frequently. But I don’t think it’s caused by income, as they are paid more compared with teachers at my school. </p>
<p>Regardless, I could always supplement having a lack of challenging high school classes by dual enrollment. (And I live in a state where such classes are subsidized, so it’s more available than some might think)</p>
<p>As for ECs, I definitely wouldn’t have the same opportunities in an inner-city school. (Although I think my main activity, forensics, receives very little money from the administration and is rather driven by a very dedicated coach) I would have plenty of time to volunteer more though. But while having ECs is nice and enriching, it really only matters when applying to a selective college.</p>
<p>My point is here is that education is based off of lots of things besides funding. Some of these are in people’s control, but a lot of it isn’t. Either way, simply increasing the amount of money that schools get can’t fix these underlying structural issues.</p>
<p>“And, for those who don’t buy the anonymous posting of such shocking statistics on the Internet, here’s a nearby similarly sized high school that is a little bit better off financially than we are (because they’re getting tax revenue from some wind farms):”</p>
<p>Why is it shocking? The schools have hardly any students. If you want good programs and the money to run them you need a school with a lot more students.</p>
<p>The schools used to have significantly more programs, with the same sized student bodies. Then when the financial resources declined, so did the programs. </p>
<p>So yes, money matters - a lot. </p>
<p>Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using CC App</p>
<p>I heard my name being mentioned.
</p>
<p>My position actually goes much further than the article. I dont mind an aristocracy of the 1% if they are indeed the best we have. Observing political and economic events of the last few decades convince me our ruling elite may be in the top 50%, but certainly not in the top 1% in terms of ability. As far as their integrity or morality goes, I will leave it for you to decide.</p>
<p>What I see is a group of people, using their economic and political clout to get their off-springs into elite colleges, signaling to society that they are the best and the finest. These pretenders then in turn parlay their elite diplomas and their connections into positions of power and responsibility that they are not necessarily suited.</p>
<p>Since everything is relative, it would not be a problem if the rest of the world is run by fools and despots. Unfortunately, we are being challenged by the new Chinese model (there is a CC thread on it at this moment). It appears that out of their 9 men ruling elite, 8 are trained engineers (another ongoing CC thread). The exception is a guy with a law degree from Beijing and a PHD in economics. So no fool there either.</p>
<p>In addition to their academic pedigree, these men seem to be administrators of the highest quality, having run cities and provinces the size of many US states combined effectively, and many also turn in impressive GDP growth while they are at it. I will be watching their leadership transition with more than passing interest later this year.</p>
<p>After seeing how our ruling elite run up unbelievable deficits (and don’t seem to know how to get out of it), get us into all kinds of silly wars, and almost accidentally or intentionally destroy our banking system, I am embarrassed to see them lecture the Chinese on how they should pick their leaders. I really am.</p>
<p>As I see it anyway.</p>