3 ms·

Call me crazy, but what if you just funded all public schools sufficiently that the advantage of going to the "good" school was lessened? Is that too socialist?

by mabbo 8y ago

cm2012 8y ago
The good high schools in this article aren't good because of funding. They're good because they only let in the top 1% of kids.
- gedy 8y ago
  Public charter schools (at least around me) receive much less funding, and yet have better facilities, test scores, etc for this same reason.
Reactionary_ 8y ago
Because it has nothing to do with the funding and everything to do with who is a student there.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mrchicity 8y ago
Good schools are mostly good because of their student bodies. At a basic level you need teachers who care, books and decent accommodations. If those basics aren't being met, then spending will help. And if those needs are met, it certainly helps to have really great, special teachers who push students a little further. But I believe if you took the kids from a selective school and swapped them with kids from a school with frequent violence and truancy, the kids from the selective school would still have far better life outcomes, and find ways to succeed despite run down classrooms, less inspiring teachers, and dated books. They would succeed if you put them in an 1800s one-room schoolhouse, or didn't even send them to school at all. They had to pass a high bar for intellectual ability and their parents care about education.
- dokein 8y ago
  100% agree. 100 years ago, if you didn't have access to a textbook or a teacher, you were largely shit outta luck. Today, with adequately motivated parents / students (and a moderate amount of resources, i.e. access to the internet and/or public library and the knowledge to seek things there), one can bypass these issues. One can even gain knowledge and skill that is far beyond the high-school level. I actually wonder if the internet will magnify cultural differences over time. So the children who are motivated (whether intrinsic, parents, or culture) will get even further ahead by taking online courses, while the children who are not will fall even further behind.
tdb7893 8y ago
I went to a private school that had less funding than the local public school but the students were more motivated so my school performed better. Funding helps but having a school with motivated students will always create a significant gap regardless of funding levels

Call me crazy, but what if you just funded all public schools sufficiently that the advantage of going to the "good" school was lessened? Is that too socialist?

by mabbo 8y ago

Call me crazy, but what if you just funded all public schools sufficiently that the advantage of going to the "good" school was lessened? Is that too socialist?

cm2012 8y ago

The good high schools in this article aren't good because of funding. They're good because they only let in the top 1% of kids.

gedy 8y ago
Public charter schools (at least around me) receive much less funding, and yet have better facilities, test scores, etc for this same reason.

Reactionary_ 8y ago

Because it has nothing to do with the funding and everything to do with who is a student there.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mrchicity 8y ago

Good schools are mostly good because of their student bodies. At a basic level you need teachers who care, books and decent accommodations. If those basics aren't being met, then spending will help. And if those needs are met, it certainly helps to have really great, special teachers who push students a little further. But I believe if you took the kids from a selective school and swapped them with kids from a school with frequent violence and truancy, the kids from the selective school would still have far better life outcomes, and find ways to succeed despite run down classrooms, less inspiring teachers, and dated books. They would succeed if you put them in an 1800s one-room schoolhouse, or didn't even send them to school at all. They had to pass a high bar for intellectual ability and their parents care about education.

dokein 8y ago
100% agree. 100 years ago, if you didn't have access to a textbook or a teacher, you were largely shit outta luck. Today, with adequately motivated parents / students (and a moderate amount of resources, i.e. access to the internet and/or public library and the knowledge to seek things there), one can bypass these issues. One can even gain knowledge and skill that is far beyond the high-school level. I actually wonder if the internet will magnify cultural differences over time. So the children who are motivated (whether intrinsic, parents, or culture) will get even further ahead by taking online courses, while the children who are not will fall even further behind.

tdb7893 8y ago

I went to a private school that had less funding than the local public school but the students were more motivated so my school performed better. Funding helps but having a school with motivated students will always create a significant gap regardless of funding levels