4 ms·

The trouble is, in America the bigger mortgage often comes with a better school district.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The trouble is, in America the bigger mortgage often comes with a better school district. That's because our metric for school and school district quality largely is a measure of effects of socioeconomic status of the students, not anything the schools actually produce. So, yes, the schools in areas that have a higher buy-in cost have better marks, because they have on-average students better set-up for success. That doesn't mean the students in that district, if individually moved to a different district, would do worse, it just means that the students who would do worse independent of district are lesd likely to have parents that can afford to live in the “better” district.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  It is actually more due to the students who are not there. Yes it is true that the actual teaching is little better between districts, but the number of disruptive students that prevent any learning is vastly less in the expensive districts. If you have the ability to kick out any student who is disruptive you can turn any school in any area into a high quality school.
  - wonderwonder 8y ago
    This is then compounded by giving more money to the successful schools and less to the failing schools. This seems paradoxical as most students are zoned for a school and don't get to elect to transfer to a better one. So they are stuck in a bad school that is going to get worse due to reduced funding for failing. So kids who's parents can afford to send them to a good school district are rewarded driving home that generally where you start socio-economically is where you end up.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > the number of disruptive students that prevent any learning is vastly less. The evidence doesn't really support that, though; students in a “bad” district don't have worse performance than students with similar background in a “better” district (whether because of distraction or any other reason), “better” districts just have more students with backgrounds which are correlated with educational success, of which the strongest factor is parental education.
    - HarryHirsch 8y ago
      The OECD report (this one: http://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/35920726.pdf http://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternation...) would like you to believe that student background does not determine student performance. They do find a correlation, but it varies substantially between countries, suggesting that other factors are at play. According to that report the important factors are student and teacher discipline and school atmosphere, and on can easily understand why all of these might be better in an affluent suburb.
      - pkaye 8y ago
        In my city, there are 5 high schools in different parts of the city. There is a huge difference between the rankings of 2 schools compared to the remaining three. Funding and teacher pool are pretty much the same source. The main difference is the students and their families. The parents in those areas are well educated and have high income. If anything the best performing schools looks like a dump compared to the 3 lower performing ones. I'd say student background plays a huge part on their performance.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > They do find a correlation, but it varies substantially between countries, suggesting that other factors are at play. Sure, but we’re talking about what explains variation between school districts in the same state in the US, not variation among OECD countries. I'm not saying that education policy and practice can't have a difference and doesn't globally, I'm saying there is virtually no evidence that the difference within districts that people in the US might be choosing between is driven by much of anything beyond background.
moorhosj 8y ago
Maybe more people should rent.

> The trouble is, in America the bigger mortgage often comes with a better school district. That's because our metric for school and school district quality largely is a measure of effects of socioeconomic status of the students, not anything the schools actually produce. So, yes, the schools in areas that have a higher buy-in cost have better marks, because they have on-average students better set-up for success. That doesn't mean the students in that district, if individually moved to a different district, would do worse, it just means that the students who would do worse independent of district are lesd likely to have parents that can afford to live in the “better” district.

danieltillett 8y ago
It is actually more due to the students who are not there. Yes it is true that the actual teaching is little better between districts, but the number of disruptive students that prevent any learning is vastly less in the expensive districts. If you have the ability to kick out any student who is disruptive you can turn any school in any area into a high quality school.
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  This is then compounded by giving more money to the successful schools and less to the failing schools. This seems paradoxical as most students are zoned for a school and don't get to elect to transfer to a better one. So they are stuck in a bad school that is going to get worse due to reduced funding for failing. So kids who's parents can afford to send them to a good school district are rewarded driving home that generally where you start socio-economically is where you end up.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > the number of disruptive students that prevent any learning is vastly less. The evidence doesn't really support that, though; students in a “bad” district don't have worse performance than students with similar background in a “better” district (whether because of distraction or any other reason), “better” districts just have more students with backgrounds which are correlated with educational success, of which the strongest factor is parental education.
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    The OECD report (this one: http://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/35920726.pdf http://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternation...) would like you to believe that student background does not determine student performance. They do find a correlation, but it varies substantially between countries, suggesting that other factors are at play. According to that report the important factors are student and teacher discipline and school atmosphere, and on can easily understand why all of these might be better in an affluent suburb.
    - pkaye 8y ago
      In my city, there are 5 high schools in different parts of the city. There is a huge difference between the rankings of 2 schools compared to the remaining three. Funding and teacher pool are pretty much the same source. The main difference is the students and their families. The parents in those areas are well educated and have high income. If anything the best performing schools looks like a dump compared to the 3 lower performing ones. I'd say student background plays a huge part on their performance.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > They do find a correlation, but it varies substantially between countries, suggesting that other factors are at play. Sure, but we’re talking about what explains variation between school districts in the same state in the US, not variation among OECD countries. I'm not saying that education policy and practice can't have a difference and doesn't globally, I'm saying there is virtually no evidence that the difference within districts that people in the US might be choosing between is driven by much of anything beyond background.

moorhosj 8y ago

Maybe more people should rent.