concordtom said:sycasey said:IMO in most places, "good schools" are just a function of "parents with money," much more so than the quality of the schools themselves. Urban school districts tend to look very bad by the usual measures (test scores, grad rates) because they have to serve the poor populations in those districts and the wealthier populations can choose to put their kids in private schools.Oakbear said:
"What about her troubles you?"
I don't think she is qualified, but then again many former Senators are not qualified
I have enough faith in our systems that we manage to endure despite the lousy governance we get
I have lived in Oakland for about 60 years and seen lousy mayor after lousy mayor, yet Oakland despite all the detractors is not a horrible place to live .. but I feel for the poor as they are not taken care of, the schools for the poor are lousy and give many no real chance to break out of poverty .. not unusual a almost all big cities have poor schools for minorities/poor people, my favorite is Baltimore where Pelosi's father was mayor and the schools just steadily turn out students who are below grade level .
I had been in conversation with a hs friend about choosing g schools for my kids. He was a district superintendent and had taken classes at cal (a graduate) under Norton Grubb.
Chris told me about Grubb's book:
The Money Myth
School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity
By W. Norton Grubb 2009
I'm going to paste the synopsis that Google Books says, but what I recall Chris telling me is that it's not money which predicts student outcomes.
Instead it's:
1) mothers highest level of education.
2) student's peer group.
3) I forget, which is why I'm diving here.Quote:
Can money buy high-quality education? Studies find only a weak relationship between public school funding and educational outcomes. In The Money Myth, W. Norton Grubb proposes a powerful paradigm shift in the way we think about why some schools thrive and others fail. The greatest inequalities in America's schools lie in factors other than fiscal support. Fundamental differences in resources other than moneyfor example, in leadership, instruction, and tracking policiesexplain the deepening divide in the success of our nation's schoolchildren. The Money Myth establishes several principles for a bold new approach to education reform. Drawing on a national longitudinal dataset collected over twelve years, Grubb makes a crucial distinction between "simple" resources and those "compound," "complex," and "abstract" resources that cannot be readily bought. Money can buy simple resourcessuch as higher teacher salaries and smaller class sizesbut these resources are actually some of the weakest predictors of educational outcomes. On the other hand, complex resources pertaining to school practices are astonishingly strong predictors of success. Grubb finds that tracking policies have the most profound and consistent impact on student outcomes over time. Schools often relegate low-performing studentsparticularly minoritiesto vocational, remedial, and special education tracks. So even in well-funded schools, resources may never reach the students who need them most. Grubb also finds that innovation in the classroom has a critical impact on student success. Here, too, America's schools are stratified. Teachers in underperforming schools tend to devote significant amounts of time to administration and discipline, while instructors in highly ranked schools dedicate the bulk of their time to "engaged learning," using varied pedagogical approaches. Effective schools distribute leadership among many instructors and administrators, and they foster a sense of both trust and accountability. These schools have a clear mission and coherent agenda for reaching goals. Underperforming schools, by contrast, implement a variety of fragmented reforms and practices without developing a unified plan. This phenomenon is perhaps most powerfully visible in the negative repercussions of No Child Left Behind. In a frantic attempt to meet federal standards and raise test scores quickly, more and more schools are turning to scripted "off the shelf" curricula. These practices discourage student engagement, suppress teacher creativity, and hold little promise of improving learning beyond the most basic skills. Grubb shows that infusions of money alone won't eradicate inequality in America's schools. We need to address the vast differences in the way school communities operate. By looking beyond school finance, The Money Myth gets to the core reasons why education in America is so unequal and provides clear recommendations for addressing this chronic national problem.
Further, I just had a conversation with ChatGPT and here was what it said:
Yes, you are correct about the focus of "The Money Myth" by Warner Norton Grubb III. In the book, Grubb challenges the common belief that increased funding for schools directly leads to improved student outcomes. Instead, he explores various factors that contribute to student success beyond funding levels. These factors include:
1. **Highest Level of Education Attained by the Mother**: Grubb emphasizes the importance of parental education, particularly the educational attainment of the mother, in shaping student success. Research suggests that children of more educated mothers tend to achieve better educational outcomes.
2. **Student Characteristics and Traits**: The book highlights the significance of individual student characteristics and traits, such as motivation, perseverance, and engagement, in academic achievement. Grubb argues that personal attributes play a critical role in determining student success.
3. **Peer Influences and Social Networks**: Grubb discusses the impact of peer influences and social networks on student outcomes. Positive peer relationships and supportive social environments can contribute to academic success and overall well-being.
4. **Quality of Teaching and Instruction**: While not directly related to funding levels, the quality of teaching and instructional practices is another factor that Grubb suggests can influence student achievement. Effective teaching methods and supportive classroom environments can enhance learning outcomes.
Overall, "The Money Myth" challenges the notion that simply increasing financial resources for schools will automatically lead to improved educational outcomes. Instead, Grubb highlights the importance of addressing a broader range of factors that contribute to student success, including family background, individual characteristics, social influences, and teaching quality.
I apologize for not providing the specific fourth factor mentioned in the book. If you have further questions or would like additional information, please feel free to ask!
The point of my friend Chris was to challenge that the solution to schools is simply to throw money at them.
15 years later, however, I still think money would do a lot to improve educational outcomes.
Which brings me to another interesting news article I read a couple days ago:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/elementary-school-tries-radical-idea-115950946.htmlQuote:
An Elementary School Tries a 'Radical' Idea: Staying Open 12 Hours a Day
Troy Closson
Tue, April 9, 2024 at 4:59 AM PDT
5 min read
2k
The longer hours have helped the school boost its enrollment.
NEW YORK It sounds like a dream for some working parents: school for 12 hours a day, starting bright and early at 7 a.m. and ending after dinner, at 7 p.m., all completely free.
One elementary school, Brooklyn Charter School, is experimenting with the idea as a way to tackle two problems at once. The first is a sharp decline in students in urban schools. Families are leaving city public schools around the country, including in New York City, which has led some districts to consider merging schools or even closing them.
The second is the logistical nightmare many parents face as they try to juggle jobs and child care.
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
Millions of families scramble to fill the gap between school dismissal, around 3 p.m., and the end of the work day, several hours later. Many never escape long waiting lists for after-school programs. Others simply cannot afford to sign up. Lower-income parents often have the hardest time finding high-quality care.
These obstacles along with high rents and costs of living are driving families away from the city. Brooklyn Charter School is in Bedford-Stuyvesant, a rapidly changing neighborhood where Black families have departed in droves. The school, where Black students make up three-fourths of enrollment, lost nearly 30% of its students during the coronavirus pandemic, shrinking from more than 230 children to fewer than 165.
"We thought, 'We have to do something radical,'" Principal Joanne Hunt said. "School hours aren't made for working people."
ADVERTISEMENT
So far, the idea of staying open 12 hours a day seems to be working. About 80 students have signed up for the longer hours, and the school's enrollment is now close to 200. It is a sign that in an expensive city, the most important school amenity for some parents might not be a state-of-the-art science lab or a media studio, but affordable child care.
"We love it," Ayanna Souza said as she picked up her 10-year-old daughter, Jada Lee, on a recent evening. "Before this," she said, "I was struggling."
While many of the students in the program do not stay at school for the full 12 hours, staff members acknowledge that it can be a long time for children to be away from home which may be hard on them and on their families. But long days are a common experience in a city where many parents work long hours to get by, and where commutes can tack on hours to the workday.
Research shows that after-school programs, especially high-quality ones, can help improve a child's attendance, academics and other measures of well-being, including mental health.
ADVERTISEMENT
But as the city grapples with budget constraints, hopes have dimmed that the number of after-school seats can be expanded, and some programs have even been cut.
Brooklyn Charter used to open its doors at 7:30 a.m. Now, a few dozen students arrive half an hour earlier. They read books and tell stories in an auditorium under the watchful eye of a social worker.
From 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., school goes on as normal. On a recent Tuesday, there were blocks of math practice, mock English exams and a book fair. When the formal school day ended, the fun began for the seven dozen students who stay late under the care of counselors.
First up: a meal. Angela Alegria, who works in the school's kitchen, pulled fries out the oven to go with fish sandwiches. The chicken tenders and mozzarella sticks are the favorite, though, according to a group of 6-year-old friends, Aaron, Ashton and Mia.
After dinner that evening, a boisterous comedy session began. Students drum-rolled on tables as their friends took the stage a large crate in the center of the cafeteria to crack jokes. One young girl stole the show, asking, "Why did the cow go to the theater?"
She paused, before bringing down the house: "Because he wanted to watch a moooooovie."
Then the students split up for a series of activities.
Room 320 broke into booms and bangs as older students practiced the drums. An instructor quizzed them about quarter notes and helped them identify low- and high-pitched sounds.
"Hands in places!" the instructor said, later asking one boy who was tipping his instrument back and forth, "How do we hold our drum, sir?"
ADVERTISEMENT
Across the hall, kindergartners counted on their fingers to complete their math homework. "I did it!" one student yelled out after solving a particularly tough problem.
And in another room, first graders grabbed card stock and markers to design robots to look like Sonic the Hedgehog and Disney princesses. When it was time for the groups to rotate sessions, one girl shouted out something unthinkable.
"Homework time," she said. "Yay!"
In New York, fewer than half of public schools offer free, city-funded services after school. In addition to boosting academic achievement, these can help keep students out of trouble: Most juvenile crime occurs in the hours around dismissal. But most of those programs end at 6 p.m., if not earlier.
ADVERTISEMENT
The dearth of choices is gaining political attention. The state Senate recently said it wants to explore options for universal after-school programming. One Democratic lawmaker and potential mayoral candidate, Zellnor Myrie, has argued that such an initiative could be a "game changer" for families.
At Brooklyn Charter, many families just wanted better child care. "There was a huge need in our community," said Roger Redhead, who runs the program.
Throughout the evening, parents trickled in after work. Princess Williams, whose son Adonis often stays for about two hours after dismissal, said the program had made her family's life much easier. "It's just beautiful," she said.
By 6:30 p.m., only about five students were left.
ADVERTISEMENT
They entertained themselves with intense tic-tac-toe matches at a cafeteria table. Some wanted to stay even later and keep playing when their family members arrived.
The parents reminded their children: You'll see your friends again in 12 hours!
c.2024 The New York Times
I suppose you could say I'm pretty interested in this subject matter. We argue about all sorts of stuff that matters not! This stuff matters big times, millions at a time. But it gets little air time on the national debate stage.
LOL the school administrators of earlier this century (I worked with some and knew them personally) who were saying that raising teacher salaries and lowering class sizes were not good ideas. Nobody ever said that doing those things would "automatically" improve education. And indeed, they are two of the most expensive "fixes".
Yes, "throwing money at a problem" does not mean the problem will be solved. However, "investing in solutions to a problem" is kind of what smart people and smart organizations do.
True, kids are going to learn more in a class of 35 taught by a very good teacher than they would in a class of 20 taught by a not-so-good teacher...
But let me ask you this: If everything else were equal, would you rather have your kid in a class of 35, or a class of 20? I mean duh.
And let me ask you this: If everything else were equal, what school district do you think is going to have better teachers, one where the teachers make $70,000 average, or one were the teachers make $90,000 average? I mean duh.
Guess what, if you put your kid into a fancy private school, they are not in an underfunded classroom with 34 other kids in the class. Because the parents wouldn't run their business that way and they know that they don't want their kids in a school that is run that way.
All that said, I will concede that there are more cost-effective ways to improve schools that should be tried, especially when working under strict budget constraints. Just don't tell me that investing in higher-paid teachers and smaller class sizes, when done wisely, isn't going to help.
