4 ms·

What is the expected benefit of punishing schools by underfunding them if they get beaten by other schools’ test scores? Have school districts not yet discover

What is the expected benefit of punishing schools by underfunding them if they get beaten by other schools’ test scores? Have school districts not yet discovered that competition applied to learning is counterproductive?

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
I believe it is district funding that suffers for low grades and that it takes a few years of consistently low performance before the state applies any action. I should note that our schools are primarily funded from county taxes but state funding is enough to matter. However, the testing dynamic tends to nurture a perverse incentive for counties to showcase their high performing schools and increase funding to them. Some school boards resist that temptation better than others.
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
Personally, I feel we have reached the limits of what schools can do with the current structures, that there is very little improvement that can be mined. The things we do to maximize fiscal efficiency (grouping by age, school start times during optimal sleep periods) aren't in the students' best interests. The OP's article seems to bear witness of that.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  I'm not sure what it would look like, but I'd like to see kids a few years older teaching younger kids. You get a much better understanding of the subject when you have to teach it.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    In the early 70s I was part of an experiment that did just that. We were one very large class of grades 1-6. Older kids were assigned younger ones to mentor. I was in it for two years; it was a really good experience. As for the outcome, all I know it wasn't broadly adopted.
alistairSH 6y ago
Not sure about the UK, but in the US, it's the opposite. Failing schools get more funding, at least temporarily, with the expectation they turn the scores around in a few years. They risk losing accreditation if they don't improve, but that's usually years away.
JCharante 6y ago
In Maine for example, when the boards are looking into renewing a charter school's license, their test results on the state exam is heavily weighed. Schools that are not performing well on the tests may get their charter revoked. So the benefit is saving children from incompetent management. My town's school department had 5 elementary schools. During 4th grade, my elementary school which I lived closest to was underperforming in state evaluation tests. This meant that they allowed anybody attending it to transfer over to any other elementary school. I opted for this option and was able to re-attend my original elementary school before I had moved. My (charter) high school consistently performed in the higher ranks for SAT & state tests. They didn't have any classes to prepare us for them, although that probably would have been useful from a college admissions perspective. If a school is performing really badly it's probably that their curriculum is flawed or that management isn't doing a good job. Competition applied to learning helps light a fire under people doing a bad job running a school.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

I believe it is district funding that suffers for low grades and that it takes a few years of consistently low performance before the state applies any action. I should note that our schools are primarily funded from county taxes but state funding is enough to matter. However, the testing dynamic tends to nurture a perverse incentive for counties to showcase their high performing schools and increase funding to them. Some school boards resist that temptation better than others.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

Personally, I feel we have reached the limits of what schools can do with the current structures, that there is very little improvement that can be mined. The things we do to maximize fiscal efficiency (grouping by age, school start times during optimal sleep periods) aren't in the students' best interests. The OP's article seems to bear witness of that.

dehrmann 6y ago
I'm not sure what it would look like, but I'd like to see kids a few years older teaching younger kids. You get a much better understanding of the subject when you have to teach it.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  In the early 70s I was part of an experiment that did just that. We were one very large class of grades 1-6. Older kids were assigned younger ones to mentor. I was in it for two years; it was a really good experience. As for the outcome, all I know it wasn't broadly adopted.

alistairSH 6y ago

Not sure about the UK, but in the US, it's the opposite. Failing schools get more funding, at least temporarily, with the expectation they turn the scores around in a few years. They risk losing accreditation if they don't improve, but that's usually years away.

JCharante 6y ago

In Maine for example, when the boards are looking into renewing a charter school's license, their test results on the state exam is heavily weighed. Schools that are not performing well on the tests may get their charter revoked. So the benefit is saving children from incompetent management. My town's school department had 5 elementary schools. During 4th grade, my elementary school which I lived closest to was underperforming in state evaluation tests. This meant that they allowed anybody attending it to transfer over to any other elementary school. I opted for this option and was able to re-attend my original elementary school before I had moved. My (charter) high school consistently performed in the higher ranks for SAT & state tests. They didn't have any classes to prepare us for them, although that probably would have been useful from a college admissions perspective. If a school is performing really badly it's probably that their curriculum is flawed or that management isn't doing a good job. Competition applied to learning helps light a fire under people doing a bad job running a school.