From: stephen@sprunk.org
On 31-Mar-15 13:46, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Well, that's because what we're evaluating is not really schools'
>> performance, yet we pretend it is, and we take all sorts of
>> actions based on that pretense that are completely inappropriate.
>>
>> If we actually _could_ measure school performance, that could be
>> of enormous benefit; unfortunately, nobody has really figured out
>> how.
>
> Oh, I think you'd have to follow the kids for a lot of years after
> they graduate, not just into the next grade.
Folks have done all sorts of longitudinal studies; there is _no_ factor
with any statistically-significant correlation other than the parents'
income. For all intents and purposes, success is inherited, and schools
(and every other factor we've tried tracking) are irrelevant.
>>> In fact, I think standardized testing has no ability to help
>>> students.
>
>> It does, actually. By far, the single most important thing that
>> improves student (and school) performance is ending "social
>> promotion", and since most schools have proven unwilling to do so
>> on their own, a regime that forces it on them is quite beneficial.
>
> I'm not linking these two situations. Just saying that real life
> isn't a standardized test, just that too much of what schools are
> teaching has no real world application, just teaching to the test.
I'd agree there is a problem with the typical curriculum in our public
schools, but that is only distantly related to how well students learn
whatever it is we choose to teach them.
Granted, if more of the curriculum were useful, students would be more
motivated to learn it than they are today, but that still doesn't have
much to do with the effectiveness of one school vs another--and it's
still less influential than parents' income.
>> Everyone rants about NCLB, and it certainly has its problems, but
>> it was based on decades of experience--and proven results--in
>> Texas.
>
> I didn't know that.
Texas started messing with this stuff in the early 1980s, back when kids
routinely graduated despite literally not being able to write their own
names, and even then the graduation rate was barely over 50%. Today,
the graduation rate is 93% (and still climbing) _and_ nearly all
graduates are college-ready, not merely literate.
I disagree with "college-ready" being the only goal for K-12 schools,
but that _was_ the goal chosen by the politicians, and Texas schools
have done a great job--far better than they usually get credit for.
>>> I just think kids from wealthier families have a better chance
>>> of avoiding certain aspects of education that are harmful. I
>>> don't believe that poor kids can't be educated to the best of
>>> their ability, despite that many of them have serious family
>>> problems. School can't overcome the latter, but better schools
>>> should help.
>
>> That's not what the evidence says, unfortunately.
>
> Maybe we need a new definition.
>
> In my area, Mexican immigrants live in the suburbs, in much of the
> metropolitan area. It's not like the parents have better jobs or a
> higher standard of living or pay higher rent, although the suburbs
> that aren't drug re-distribution points have lower murder rates.
>
> They do better in suburban public schools.
If the same kids with the same parents went to urban public schools,
they'd perform pretty much the same, on average.
>> Yes, there are kids who overcome their parents' poverty and are
>> successful, but there are just as many kids who overcome their
>> parents' wealth and are unsuccessful, so it's a wash.
>
> To hugely stereotype, children of poor Mexican immigrants are more
> likely to live in two-parent households than black children in
> poverty, who are more likely to live in female head of household, no
> father.
A two-parent household means twice the income for less than twice the
expenses and more parental interaction with the kids, which is one of
the reasons why parents' (technically, household) income is key.
>> If you take a poor kid and drop them in a rich school, he'll do a
>> lot better, but the rich kids will all do slightly worse. Once you
>> hit a critical mass, the rich kids all leave, and now you have just
>> another failed school full of poor kids--and more busing.
>
> I know what statistic you are referring to, but I'm absolutely not
> arguing for busing.
Dallas still has court-ordered integration, with many kids spending
hours per day being bused across town, so it's a big topic here, and we
have _lots_ of data on what happens in the real world when you put poor
kids in rich schools or vice versa.
As happened elsewhere, the whites fled to the suburbs, so the courts
decided to integrate the blacks with the Latinos. Then the Latinos fled
to the suburbs, so the courts decided to integrate the rich and poor
blacks. Now the rich blacks are fleeing to the suburbs. The city is now
more segregated than when "integration" started, so everyone is hoping
that the courts will finally give up when there is nobody left to bus
around--and whites, Latinos and rich blacks will move back into the
city, reducing segregation.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
