6 ms·

Are these assumptions, that throwing money at the problem characterizes US public school, and that quality children usually have rich parents, anything like jus

Are these assumptions, that throwing money at the problem characterizes US public school, and that quality children usually have rich parents, anything like justified?

PeterisP 8y ago
Regarding the second part, yes, the fact that academic achievement is highly influenced by socioeconomic status is well supported by research; a big part of the whole correlation is that higher socioeconomic status means better schools, but there's still a strong effect within the same school. There's a bunch of studies that try to estimate the nature/nurture split, but in any case higher socioeconomic status correlates positively with pretty much everything schooling-wise.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Sure, but all that is another thing. I was questioning a particular assumption: quality children usually have rich parents Maybe that wasn't what was meant, but that was what was said.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    What if poor children tend to have distracting home lives, stressful situations, parents who aren't educated enough to help tutor, poorer diets, higher rates of disease and fewer positive peer and authority figure examples?
    - xyzzyz 8y ago
      If these are what makes poor children perform poor at school, then the strategy of making good schools to boost house prices is not viable -- we simply have no idea how to make kids facing the problems described above achieve good scores, because if we did, we'd already be doing this. Moreover, this wouldn't attract wealthy buyers, because their children don't have these problems in the first place, so they won't get any improvement. The point here is that we have no idea how to make a school good, other than by kicking out bad students (whatever the reasons for them being bad might be) and getting good ones. If you knew a way to take a random bad performing school in the country, and bring its students educational outcomes to above national average, you'd make lots of money contracting out consulting to local government.
      - istjohn 8y ago
        > The point here is that we have no idea how to make a school good, other than by kicking out bad students I would disagree with any metric claiming to measure school quality that is not constant when the demographics of the school change. If our metrics simply gauge the socioeconomic status of a school's population, we need better metrics. We also need to develop interventions that overcome the educational costs of poverty, perhaps, dare I say, by eliminating--or at least attenuating--poverty.
        rmdashrfroot 8y ago
        Who are you arguing with? You don't like poverty? Neither does anyone else. And if the metrics don't appeal to your preconceived notion of how the metrics should work, you want to change the metrics? You want metrics to not notice changes in demographics?
      - alasdair_ 8y ago
        > If you knew a way to take a random bad performing school in the country, and bring its students educational outcomes to above national average, you'd make lots of money contracting out consulting to local government. Converting them to boarding schools and essentially cut off contact with the rest of the world may work. It would also be both really expensive and creepy, reminiscent of the times when native American children were forced to attend English-only schools away from their families.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      I still don't know whether quality children usually have rich parents. Whatever quality and rich are taken to mean, exactly.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    It's perhaps worth to consider what does "quality children" mean in the context of a "good school" - and it could certainly be argued that one of the major criteria for parents moving in and choosing a school is to get their kids into a school where the other kids are of a comparable or higher socioeconomic status. The other things about the school are fixable by heavily involved parents, but you can't (easily) alter the peers which your kid has in school, only pick a school with "good" peers. Other things being equal, having your kid in a school with (other) poor kids puts him/her at a disadvantage, all kinds of poverty-correlated problems (e.g. parental neglect, parental drug abuse, nutrition problems, crime and imprisonment) drag down not only affected kids but also their classmates.
- AdamM12 8y ago
  Two parent household is probably a better indicator of academic success but income and multiple parents are obviously linked. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2096106?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2096106?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...
efnx 8y ago
They must be. Public schools are underfunded. Also, who measures children by “quality”? Jeez. This part of SV culture I would like to unsubscribe from.
- dnautics 8y ago
  Public schools are not underfunded. The inflation adjusted per student k12 spend in the us has gone up over the last 30 years. It seems like school teachers are dramatically underpaid (a matter of opinion but I feel it's probably true in the median), but not the system as a whole.
  - forgotmysn 8y ago
    it really varies, its not fair to say that all schools are well or poorly funded. in california, it is dependent on local taxes for example. so palo alto has incredible schools, and LA and Oakland have some of the worst in the country
    - aidenn0 8y ago
      For most of california it is not at all dependent on local taxes. Local taxes only significantly affect "Basic Aid" (i.e. wealthy) school districts, 40% of which are in the Bay Area. For the rest of the state, the funding is nearly identical on a per-student basis.
    - xyzzyz 8y ago
      Palo Alto spends only 10% more than Oakland per student, which itself spends more than both national and state average. If Oakland schools are worst in the country, the funding has minor, if any, impact on it.
      - ultrasounder 8y ago
        The difference is "PiE" Partners in education, which is a non-profit voluntary parent-led organization which supports "All" the extracurricular activities plus for in-class aides for all classes.

Are these assumptions, that throwing money at the problem characterizes US public school, and that quality children usually have rich parents, anything like justified?

PeterisP 8y ago

Regarding the second part, yes, the fact that academic achievement is highly influenced by socioeconomic status is well supported by research; a big part of the whole correlation is that higher socioeconomic status means better schools, but there's still a strong effect within the same school. There's a bunch of studies that try to estimate the nature/nurture split, but in any case higher socioeconomic status correlates positively with pretty much everything schooling-wise.

yesenadam 8y ago
Sure, but all that is another thing. I was questioning a particular assumption: quality children usually have rich parents Maybe that wasn't what was meant, but that was what was said.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  What if poor children tend to have distracting home lives, stressful situations, parents who aren't educated enough to help tutor, poorer diets, higher rates of disease and fewer positive peer and authority figure examples?
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    If these are what makes poor children perform poor at school, then the strategy of making good schools to boost house prices is not viable -- we simply have no idea how to make kids facing the problems described above achieve good scores, because if we did, we'd already be doing this. Moreover, this wouldn't attract wealthy buyers, because their children don't have these problems in the first place, so they won't get any improvement. The point here is that we have no idea how to make a school good, other than by kicking out bad students (whatever the reasons for them being bad might be) and getting good ones. If you knew a way to take a random bad performing school in the country, and bring its students educational outcomes to above national average, you'd make lots of money contracting out consulting to local government.
    - istjohn 8y ago
      > The point here is that we have no idea how to make a school good, other than by kicking out bad students I would disagree with any metric claiming to measure school quality that is not constant when the demographics of the school change. If our metrics simply gauge the socioeconomic status of a school's population, we need better metrics. We also need to develop interventions that overcome the educational costs of poverty, perhaps, dare I say, by eliminating--or at least attenuating--poverty.
      - rmdashrfroot 8y ago
        Who are you arguing with? You don't like poverty? Neither does anyone else. And if the metrics don't appeal to your preconceived notion of how the metrics should work, you want to change the metrics? You want metrics to not notice changes in demographics?
    - alasdair_ 8y ago
      > If you knew a way to take a random bad performing school in the country, and bring its students educational outcomes to above national average, you'd make lots of money contracting out consulting to local government. Converting them to boarding schools and essentially cut off contact with the rest of the world may work. It would also be both really expensive and creepy, reminiscent of the times when native American children were forced to attend English-only schools away from their families.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    I still don't know whether quality children usually have rich parents. Whatever quality and rich are taken to mean, exactly.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  It's perhaps worth to consider what does "quality children" mean in the context of a "good school" - and it could certainly be argued that one of the major criteria for parents moving in and choosing a school is to get their kids into a school where the other kids are of a comparable or higher socioeconomic status. The other things about the school are fixable by heavily involved parents, but you can't (easily) alter the peers which your kid has in school, only pick a school with "good" peers. Other things being equal, having your kid in a school with (other) poor kids puts him/her at a disadvantage, all kinds of poverty-correlated problems (e.g. parental neglect, parental drug abuse, nutrition problems, crime and imprisonment) drag down not only affected kids but also their classmates.
AdamM12 8y ago
Two parent household is probably a better indicator of academic success but income and multiple parents are obviously linked. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2096106?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2096106?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...

efnx 8y ago

They must be. Public schools are underfunded. Also, who measures children by “quality”? Jeez. This part of SV culture I would like to unsubscribe from.

dnautics 8y ago
Public schools are not underfunded. The inflation adjusted per student k12 spend in the us has gone up over the last 30 years. It seems like school teachers are dramatically underpaid (a matter of opinion but I feel it's probably true in the median), but not the system as a whole.
- forgotmysn 8y ago
  it really varies, its not fair to say that all schools are well or poorly funded. in california, it is dependent on local taxes for example. so palo alto has incredible schools, and LA and Oakland have some of the worst in the country
  - aidenn0 8y ago
    For most of california it is not at all dependent on local taxes. Local taxes only significantly affect "Basic Aid" (i.e. wealthy) school districts, 40% of which are in the Bay Area. For the rest of the state, the funding is nearly identical on a per-student basis.
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    Palo Alto spends only 10% more than Oakland per student, which itself spends more than both national and state average. If Oakland schools are worst in the country, the funding has minor, if any, impact on it.
    - ultrasounder 8y ago
      The difference is "PiE" Partners in education, which is a non-profit voluntary parent-led organization which supports "All" the extracurricular activities plus for in-class aides for all classes.