LGP Education thread

[Point Breeze Penguins]

Like I said grades don't matter. Heck GWB went to Yale because of who his dad knew. As you said in the first part of your post with the alumni networks comment. GWB a very average student went on to be President because of who he and his family knew not because of his grades. I suppose that's an extreme example but it does demonstrate that grades truly don't matter in the real world. Money and who you know is what matters. Also not saying it's OK then to do poorly in school but it's not as important as it is being made out to be.

It is worth mentioning GWB had higher grades than John Kerry at Yale and also was accepted into and graduated from Harvard Business School on his own merit.

[Pavel Bure]

Like I said grades don't matter. Heck GWB went to Yale because of who his dad knew. As you said in the first part of your post with the alumni networks comment. GWB a very average student went on to be President because of who he and his family knew not because of his grades. I suppose that's an extreme example but it does demonstrate that grades truly don't matter in the real world. Money and who you know is what matters. Also not saying it's OK then to do poorly in school but it's not as important as it is being made out to be.

It is worth mentioning GWB had higher grades than John Kerry at Yale and also was accepted into and graduated from Harvard Business School on his own merit.

Oh god higher grades do mean better things. For the record they are both turds.

[tifosi77]

It is worth mentioning GWB had higher grades than John Kerry at Yale and also was accepted into and graduated from Harvard Business School on his own merit.

Then it is also worth mentioning that their averages were 77 and 76, respectively.

[Point Breeze Penguins]

lol... I didn't say "substantially better grades"

[Draftnik]

There is no way a kid has perspective to understand the consequences of their choices as a teenager.

Does that mean that we should hit them too, since we can't put them in their rooms?

I'm not sure how you jump to violence, but hitting kids is wrong IMO.

Its absurd to think a teenager would have the context to understand how poor decisions made in high school regarding academic achievement could make their life harder as an adult.

[AlexPKeaton]

It is overly simplistic to blame teachers for low student achievement. SAT scores are inextricably linked to parental income:

Doesn't parental income level directly correlate to larger tax money and better teachers?

The entire documentary of Waiting for Superman was about exactly this. It profiled a few charter schools that took low income kids and significantly improved their academic achievement. The central thesis is that the idea that only parental income level predicts academic success is antiquated and needs to change.

[tifosi77]

Fewer than one in five charter schools produce significantly better outcomes, while nearly two in five are actually worse performers. The balance - nearly half of the nation's 5,000 charter schools - perform no better than a matched public school.

The superiority of charter schools is a myth; some might even call it a fraud.

And some charter schools have a charming habit of dismissing poorly performing students right before test time so as to not have their test scores adversely effect the school's NCLB standing. That's fun.

[Draftnik]

It is overly simplistic to blame teachers for low student achievement. SAT scores are inextricably linked to parental income:

Doesn't parental income level directly correlate to larger tax money and better teachers?

The entire documentary of Waiting for Superman was about exactly this. It profiled a few charter schools that took low income kids and significantly improved their academic achievement. The central thesis is that the idea that only parental income level predicts academic success is antiquated and needs to change.

I'm not familiar with the movie you reference but if there were studies done that proved empirically that more $$$ in schools provided better outcomes at all socio-economic levels that the problem would have been solved years ago.

Based on other posters comments it seems like this movie picked out anecdotal examples to come to a conclusion the filmmakers already had when they started production.

I'm sure more $$$ for better teachers and learning support tools helps, but it wouldn't offset socio-economic factors in a meaningful way IMO.

Corbett destroyed the budgets of low income districts with his latest budget. he is going in the opposite direction. I guess most of those people didn't vote for him or his legislature so they have nothing to lose by destroying their schools.

The better teacher argument is also subjective IMO. For example, in PTSD they require all teachers (hired after 2009 I believe) have a 3.7 GPA or better. My oldest child has had teachers from the prestigious Northwestern (Chicago, IL) as well as PASSHE schools. No offense to anybody that went to a PASSHE school, but a 3.7 from one of those schools isn't equivalent to a 3.7 from Northwestern. The standard sounds somewhat rigorous in theory, but in practicality it doesn't mean much IMO. We could be missing out on great potential teachers that attended relatively hard universities and earned 3.5s for example. Those people would be smarter than 3.7s from PASSHE schools. Would they be better teachers? I'm not sure how you can measure that at the time of application.

I think its going to be harder to attract good teachers, even to a relatively safe district like PTSD. Our budget is going to explode in the next few years because of pension & healthcare benefits for retiring teachers. New teachers aren't going to get the same lucrative retirement benefits, so that will go a long way to nullifying some of the retirement advantages teaching had that offset the relatively mediocre earning potential during the working years.

[AlexPKeaton]

Fewer than one in five charter schools produce significantly better outcomes, while nearly two in five are actually worse performers. The balance - nearly half of the nation's 5,000 charter schools - perform no better than a matched public school.

The superiority of charter schools is a myth; some might even call it a fraud.

And some charter schools have a charming habit of dismissing poorly performing students right before test time so as to not have their test scores adversely effect the school's NCLB standing. That's fun.

They mention that also. They profiled the few of them that specifically took low income kids and produced results. The question is how to scale the methods of those specific schools.

[AlexPKeaton]

It is overly simplistic to blame teachers for low student achievement. SAT scores are inextricably linked to parental income:

Doesn't parental income level directly correlate to larger tax money and better teachers?

The entire documentary of Waiting for Superman was about exactly this. It profiled a few charter schools that took low income kids and significantly improved their academic achievement. The central thesis is that the idea that only parental income level predicts academic success is antiquated and needs to change.

I'm not familiar with the movie you reference but if there were studies done that proved empirically that more $$$ in schools provided better outcomes at all socio-economic levels that the problem would have been solved years ago.

Based on other posters comments it seems like this movie picked out anecdotal examples to come to a conclusion the filmmakers already had when they started production.

I'm sure more $$$ for better teachers and learning support tools helps, but it wouldn't offset socio-economic factors in a meaningful way IMO.

I would suggest everyone interested in this debate watch it. It is free on Netflix streaming. They acknowledge the income statistics and try to find examples of how to counter the parental income disparity statistics you mentioned. Because the obvious response when seeing the statistics you put up is to throw up your hands and go "oh well, it sucks to be poor!".

[tifosi77]

Based on other posters comments it seems like this movie picked out anecdotal examples to come to a conclusion the filmmakers already had when they started production.

The director is the same man who directed/produced "An Inconvenient Truth" as well as a bevy of television episodes for everything from "Deadwood" to "The Unit" to the reboot of "Melrose Place".

He's not a bad documentarian or filmmaker. Actually, I'd say he's really quite good at it. But a documentary film should never be regarded as wholly accurate. They are propaganda pieces, pure and simple. And that's true across the board, regardless of the politics behind them.

[Draftnik]

Deadwood

[AlexPKeaton]

Based on other posters comments it seems like this movie picked out anecdotal examples to come to a conclusion the filmmakers already had when they started production.

The director is the same man who directed/produced "An Inconvenient Truth" as well as a bevy of television episodes for everything from "Deadwood" to "The Unit" to the reboot of "Melrose Place".

He's not a bad documentarian or filmmaker. Actually, I'd say he's really quite good at it. But a documentary film should never be regarded as wholly accurate. They are propaganda pieces, pure and simple. And that's true across the board, regardless of the politics behind them.

I agree, but when he starts off the documentary with "every morning I drive past 3 public schools to take my kid to a private school" you know you are in for a treat haha.

[tifosi77]

They acknowledge the income statistics and try to find examples of how to counter the parental income disparity statistics you mentioned.

The filmmaker makes the assertion that "money's not the problem".... yet doesn't acknowledge the millions upon millions in private funding dollars received by the school in Harlem that's heralded as the exemplar charter school, or the fact that their per-student spend is around $15,000 (roughly 50% above the national average, but still a few Ks below the NY state average).

Don't get me wrong, I have no beef with that school. My concern is the willfully partial picture the director of 'Waiting' paints in an effort to promote his own personal agenda.

[AlexPKeaton]

They acknowledge the income statistics and try to find examples of how to counter the parental income disparity statistics you mentioned.

The filmmaker makes the assertion that "money's not the problem".... yet doesn't acknowledge the millions upon millions in private funding dollars received by the school in Harlem that's heralded as the exemplar charter school, or the fact that their per-student spend is around $15,000 (roughly 50% above the national average, but still a few Ks below the NY state average).

Don't get me wrong, I have no beef with that school. My concern is the willfully partial picture the director of 'Waiting' paints in an effort to promote his own personal agenda.

I think at some point he acknowledged the cost when he compared it to prison costs lol. I'd have to watch it again. But he didn't mention how much more the Harlem school was spending.

[MWB]

I do plan on watching the movie, I just think its overly simplistic and somewhat naive to blame teacher's unions for all educational ills. There are simply too many factors involved in the process to pinpoint one as the evil that corrupts all.

[count2infinity]

Nope... it's lazy teachers and corrupt teachers unions, no one else.

[Point Breeze Penguins]

It is actually the death of the nuclear family, especially in the black community. But that is "social conservative" talk and really hate speech.

[MWB]

It is actually the death of the nuclear family, especially in the black community. But that is "social conservative" talk and really hate speech.

That's certainly part of it. That, unions, NCLB, poor evaluation systems for teachers, bad school boards, poor curriculum choices... Lots of blame to go around.

There still are plenty of good schools though. I'm perfectly happy where my kids go to school and would also happily send them to the school at which I work. Most of the schools in the area we live are very good and I'd take over almost any private/charter school in the area.

[AlexPKeaton]

Nope... it's lazy teachers and corrupt teachers unions, no one else.

According to that dude from stanford in the documentary if you could fire the bottom 10% of teachers and replace them with average teachers all of our problems would be solved. So, why not try this? Every other professional industry works like this. The worst engineer gets canned, the worst lawyer doesn't make partner and/or is canned, the worst doctor gets canned. Why the hell can't we fire the worst teachers? Oh the union. The union is the heart of all of the problems.

[count2infinity]

Nope... it's lazy teachers and corrupt teachers unions, no one else.

According to that dude from stanford in the documentary if you could fire the bottom 10% of teachers and replace them with average teachers all of our problems would be solved. So, why not try this? Every other professional industry works like this. The worst engineer gets canned, the worst lawyer doesn't make partner and/or is canned, the worst doctor gets canned. Why the hell can't we fire the worst teachers? Oh the union. The union is the heart of all of the problems.

I can guarantee you that firing the bottom 10% would not fix all our problems. The worst teachers can get fired. Go find out what you're talking about then come back.

[MWB]

Again, if unions are the heart of the problem, states that don't have unions should be the most successful. And again, using your DC example, the union did agree to Michelle Rhee's merit-based plan. 165 teachers were fired because of poor evaluations. If they were proper evaluations, which seems suspect now because there were 75 fired teachers hired back, that's a good thing. Why not focus some of your blame on school boards that choose not to go after poor teachers, in some cases because of nepotism?

[MWB]

Fewer than one in five charter schools produce significantly better outcomes, while nearly two in five are actually worse performers. The balance - nearly half of the nation's 5,000 charter schools - perform no better than a matched public school.

The superiority of charter schools is a myth; some might even call it a fraud.

And some charter schools have a charming habit of dismissing poorly performing students right before test time so as to not have their test scores adversely effect the school's NCLB standing. That's fun.

They mention that also. They profiled the few of them that specifically took low income kids and produced results. The question is how to scale the methods of those specific schools.

Low income kids with parents who care and are involved, or with parents who don't care? Give me an involved parent over a parent with money any day.

[count2infinity]

My mother was the reason for my academic success... it most certainly was not the money my family had, because it was a very small amount.

[Draftnik]

60 Minutes did a feature on a school in Harlem last year. Its probably the same one in the film.

I agree that involved parents are the #1 predictor of academic achievement. Unfortunately lack of interest in education is probably endemic in low income parents (at the macro level) which leads to low income standard of living being passed down to subsequent generations.