From: ahk@chinet.com
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>On 31-Mar-15 12:19, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>On 30-Mar-15 19:13, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Well, no, what you can't afford is NOT to improve schools!
>>>>That's what keeps your land values to very low.
>>>The "performance" of the schools is almost entirely driven by the
>>>income of the students' parents. Spending more (or less) on
>>>schools has no effect, so the entire discussion is moot.
>>That's a whole different discussion. I have strong objections to
>>school performance measures, and I think they harm more than they
>>help.
>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.
>>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.
>The core problem is that you have to catch students when they first
>start to fall behind, so they have a chance to catch up; Texas's
>experience is that it can't be any later than 3rd grade (hence where
>NCLB starts). That means it takes 10+ years to see the benefits,
>though, and as we know, politicians rarely care about anything that pays
>off beyond their next election.
I agree with that.
>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.
>>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.
>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.
>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.
>If you have any interest in school performance, that is the most
>important insight you'll get this _decade_. Once you truly get it, it
>will change your entire perspective on the topic--similar to when you
>introduced me to land value taxation.
Fine. I'll do my homework. Thank you.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
