4 ms·

Attitudes around education in the US vary wildly across the population. To a first approximation, "good schools" are really "good students" (i.e. "good peers"),

Attitudes around education in the US vary wildly across the population. To a first approximation, "good schools" are really "good students" (i.e. "good peers"), which generally means that the families within the school's catchment area place higher value on education, which generally correlates with class. There are feedback mechanisms at play here: the people who want a good education for their kids want to be around the types of people who want a good education for their kids, and they will pay a premium to be around the kinds of people who will pay a premium to do so, reinforcing the class effect. It can't hurt to have bright, engaged kids when trying to recruit and retain good teachers either. The net result is that in some areas the schools have literally 0% of students meeting standards while others have most of the students completing the first year or two of university during high school. Somewhere like DC where GP lives, schools struggle to get the kids to show up[0]. Meanwhile I live a 10 minute walk from a school where over half the students are in AP classes and 80% of those pass the AP exams. [0] https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/about-4-in-10-dc-students-are-chronically-truant-report-says/3484717/ https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/about-4-in-10-d...

9rx 1y ago
> Attitudes around education in the US vary wildly across the population. Is that in some way unique to the US? I would say the same is true here. Certainly when talking to people out on the street, there are clearly some who value schooling to the utmost degree while others dismiss it entirely. I expect this is the case anywhere a sizeable population is found. > the people who want a good education for their kids want to be around the types of people who want a good education for their kids …But I have never heard of this happening. Looking at the data, I don't see any significant variation between schools found within a general area where you might conceivably choose a different school by moving a few miles in another direction. A couple of schools in extremely remote areas show up with struggles, in the worst case seeing only ~40% of the students meeting the standard, but I think it is fair to say that the goings on in remote places is something else entirely. > It can't hurt to have bright, engaged kids when trying to recruit and retain good teachers either. So would it be reasonable to think that it is ultimately an issue of lacking teacher standards in the US? Different people are going to be different, sure, but around here you aren't allowed to be a teacher within the school system unless you at least are able to live up to a minimum standard that carries a sufficiently high bar such that there really aren't any qualms about what teacher a student gets. I take from this that in the US, the schools that don't have sufficiently bright, sufficiently engaged kids are apt to get teachers who aren't capable of doing the job. Here, if a school lacking sufficiently bright, sufficiently engaged kids scared off good teachers, the school simply wouldn't have any teachers.
- ndriscoll 1y ago
  I don't expect it's unique to the US, but I can't speak for other areas. At least any time I've looked, real estate prices for the same floorplan home a couple neighborhoods over in a different school area can differ by a couple hundred thousand dollars, and "good schools" are a common thing for people to say they prioritize, so the effect seems real enough here. I've seen this in multiple cities/states. Like I said, to a first approximation, "good schools" are much more about the kids and families than the teachers. Teachers in the US are required to have bachelors degrees, and I believe AP teachers need masters, so there's some bar (though I don't find degrees/credentialism to be particularly compelling). Good schools are where the students set good examples for each other and drive each other to do better. Bad schools are where you're automatically in the top half of your class merely for showing up and no peers treat education seriously, so you learn not to either. There's plenty of passable schools too where you can get an adequate education, but middle class and above tend to have higher expectations for their kids, and want all of their kids' friends to have the attitude that working hard in school is completely normal and expected (i.e. they want a "good school"). Schools in bad areas do have retention problems, and the government offers incentives to teach there, but teachers aren't miracle workers.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > "good schools" are much more about the kids and families than the teachers. Is this a euphemism for "it is really about being around people who are white"? Another commenter here used similar language to this and, once we drilled down into the nitty gritty, it turns out that is what was being said. "White flight" is certainly a thing. Admittedly, where I am only 2% of the population are visible minorities. You can live anywhere your heart desires, in any school district, and you are, for all sake of practicality, only going to find white people. Perhaps this is why the concept you present seem so foreign to me?
    - ndriscoll 1y ago
      I think I was pretty explicit about what that means: the discrimination is more around class. My local school is one of the best in the state for example, and is ~60% "white" vs. ~80% for the local population. In fact the stats I see indicate that every racial minority group has higher representation within the student body than within the wider city. The more relevant factor is that a bunch of doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. live in the area. There are no homes in the area for under $1M, and many are $5M+. There is no multi-family housing. 1% of the students qualify for the income-based free lunch program. The spending per student is below average and lower than nearby worse schools, so it's not that the rich people have a higher tax base to create better schools. It's that the professional class takes for granted that of course their kids are going to take every AP class. They want their kids' friends to have that attitude too, and they expect the school to offer AP everything. If it doesn't, they won't live there. "Buy the cheapest house in the most expensive neighborhood" is an adage here for aspirationally upwardly mobile people. So basically use your money to mix with higher classes rather than on material goods (and put your kids in school with the highest class group you are able to).

9rx 1y ago

> Attitudes around education in the US vary wildly across the population. Is that in some way unique to the US? I would say the same is true here. Certainly when talking to people out on the street, there are clearly some who value schooling to the utmost degree while others dismiss it entirely. I expect this is the case anywhere a sizeable population is found. > the people who want a good education for their kids want to be around the types of people who want a good education for their kids …But I have never heard of this happening. Looking at the data, I don't see any significant variation between schools found within a general area where you might conceivably choose a different school by moving a few miles in another direction. A couple of schools in extremely remote areas show up with struggles, in the worst case seeing only ~40% of the students meeting the standard, but I think it is fair to say that the goings on in remote places is something else entirely. > It can't hurt to have bright, engaged kids when trying to recruit and retain good teachers either. So would it be reasonable to think that it is ultimately an issue of lacking teacher standards in the US? Different people are going to be different, sure, but around here you aren't allowed to be a teacher within the school system unless you at least are able to live up to a minimum standard that carries a sufficiently high bar such that there really aren't any qualms about what teacher a student gets. I take from this that in the US, the schools that don't have sufficiently bright, sufficiently engaged kids are apt to get teachers who aren't capable of doing the job. Here, if a school lacking sufficiently bright, sufficiently engaged kids scared off good teachers, the school simply wouldn't have any teachers.

ndriscoll 1y ago
I don't expect it's unique to the US, but I can't speak for other areas. At least any time I've looked, real estate prices for the same floorplan home a couple neighborhoods over in a different school area can differ by a couple hundred thousand dollars, and "good schools" are a common thing for people to say they prioritize, so the effect seems real enough here. I've seen this in multiple cities/states. Like I said, to a first approximation, "good schools" are much more about the kids and families than the teachers. Teachers in the US are required to have bachelors degrees, and I believe AP teachers need masters, so there's some bar (though I don't find degrees/credentialism to be particularly compelling). Good schools are where the students set good examples for each other and drive each other to do better. Bad schools are where you're automatically in the top half of your class merely for showing up and no peers treat education seriously, so you learn not to either. There's plenty of passable schools too where you can get an adequate education, but middle class and above tend to have higher expectations for their kids, and want all of their kids' friends to have the attitude that working hard in school is completely normal and expected (i.e. they want a "good school"). Schools in bad areas do have retention problems, and the government offers incentives to teach there, but teachers aren't miracle workers.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > "good schools" are much more about the kids and families than the teachers. Is this a euphemism for "it is really about being around people who are white"? Another commenter here used similar language to this and, once we drilled down into the nitty gritty, it turns out that is what was being said. "White flight" is certainly a thing. Admittedly, where I am only 2% of the population are visible minorities. You can live anywhere your heart desires, in any school district, and you are, for all sake of practicality, only going to find white people. Perhaps this is why the concept you present seem so foreign to me?
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    I think I was pretty explicit about what that means: the discrimination is more around class. My local school is one of the best in the state for example, and is ~60% "white" vs. ~80% for the local population. In fact the stats I see indicate that every racial minority group has higher representation within the student body than within the wider city. The more relevant factor is that a bunch of doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. live in the area. There are no homes in the area for under $1M, and many are $5M+. There is no multi-family housing. 1% of the students qualify for the income-based free lunch program. The spending per student is below average and lower than nearby worse schools, so it's not that the rich people have a higher tax base to create better schools. It's that the professional class takes for granted that of course their kids are going to take every AP class. They want their kids' friends to have that attitude too, and they expect the school to offer AP everything. If it doesn't, they won't live there. "Buy the cheapest house in the most expensive neighborhood" is an adage here for aspirationally upwardly mobile people. So basically use your money to mix with higher classes rather than on material goods (and put your kids in school with the highest class group you are able to).