A Question About Highschools in the USA

[rah]

I didn't think you were, but a lot of people think they can solve any problem by throwing money at it. Inner city schools need a different solution in my opinion.

Money might help, but it's not the total solution.

[Heraclitus]

BTW This system seems silly, why don't you guys change it? If I'm missing some pros can someone please point them out...

[Arrian]

Rah,

Ok, but that's another argument.

Heraclitus,

The system sucks, it's true. Changing it is something people have tried and, thus far, failed to do. There is general resistance to change, of course. There is also the self-interest of well-off school districts. And there is the reality that money is not a pancea. The problems in urban public schools go way beyond money. Hartford spends a good chunk 'o change per student and yet the schools are terrible.

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian
Rah,

Ok, but that's another argument.

Heraclitus,

The system sucks, it's true.

-Arrian

Why don't you guys change it then? Can't you put together a petition... or get enough signatures together for a referendum... or even just vote for the party that has educational reform in its program?

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Of course they use the public transportation. I used it for 4 years of my highschool (14-18). 14 year olds are competent enough to use it, and the city is safe enough for them to do so.

I used public transportation for HS and a bunch of elementary, starting when I was 9 years old. It's not rocket science

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
or even just vote for the party that has educational reform in its program.

No can do. Remember, in the US, it's just red and blue.

[Arrian]

I don't know all the details, but apparently:

Connecticut's school funding formula underwent a major change after the state Supreme Court in 1977 ordered the state, in the Horton vs. Meskill case, to close a large funding gap between the state's wealthiest and poorest communities.

It certainly is not a simple "put it all in a pot and then hand it back out [as the state sees fit]" system. But neither is it "each town pays for its schools by its own property taxes. Full stop."

-Arrian

[Arrian]

This article is from 2006, but I'm sure the same basic problems remain:

From a distance, public education in Connecticut looks like it's in great shape -- the state consistently ranks near the top in the nation in academic achievement and dollars invested per pupil.

But those state averages mask huge disparities between rich and poor. The city of Bridgeport is part of affluent Fairfield County, along Connecticut’s affluent "Gold Coast" -- but 95 percent of those students come from families living at or near the poverty level, and four out of five students in the city attend failing schools,

Residents and education advocates say new budget cuts have pushed Bridgeport's public schools to the breaking point. Hundreds of elementary school children are being sent from closed schools into already overcrowded classrooms across the city. Despite rising enrollment, 30 teaching positions have been eliminated. High school classes are overcrowded and often there aren't enough books to go around.

In all, the city's education budget was cut by 7 percent to make up for an $11-million shortfall. That’s significant, given that most U.S. school districts increase budgets 3 to 5 percent each year to meet teacher contract obligations and keep pace with rising health insurance premiums. The cuts follow two years of shortfalls that totaled another $11 million.

However, there may not be an infusion of money coming anytime soon. A series of recent scandals has Connecticut lawmakers unsure whether state dollars earmarked for public education in Bridgeport will be spent appropriately. The city’s former mayor and state senator are both serving time in prison for racketeering and bribery. Bridgeport’s current mayor has publicly admitted using cocaine while in office.

Peter Hurst, CEO of Bridgeport's Community Bank and an outspoken advocate for education funding in Bridgeport, echoes the doubts many have that the city can clean up its own act. "You gotta wonder -- if I’m sending a dollar to Bridgeport, is a dollar gonna make it to the classroom?"

Another problem is the formula used by the state to fund public schools. Connecticut sends money to cities and towns based on poverty rates for all the children in a district -- but in Bridgeport, many middle-class families pull their kids out of the public school system and send them to private and parochial schools. That’s part of the reason why Bridgeport contributes fewer dollars toward its own school system.

A class action lawsuit filed has been filed by families of children in Bridgeport and other low-performing school districts. It argues that the state of Connecticut has failed to adequately fund its public schools, depriving children of their right to an equal educational opportunity.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5775092

Heraclitus,

It's not that simple. See the above article. First, there is a major issue that has nothing to do with the funding system: corruption. Second, there is the flight of the better-off kids from the failing schools. And yes, there is also the funding system (which is, no doubt, complicated).

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian
This article is from 2006, but I'm sure the same basic problems remain:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5775092

Heraclitus,

It's not that simple. See the above article. First, there is a major issue that has nothing to do with the funding system: corruption. Second, there is the flight of the better-off kids from the failing schools. And yes, there is also the funding system (which is, no doubt, complicated).

-Arrian

1.Curuption flurishes under bad rules and were people are used to it. The solution is to create a robust system and replace as many of the people in the middle of the hiearchy as possible.

2.Less better-off kids would leave if the public schools were of better quality...

3.The more complicated the system the more exploits it has, sometimes you can patch it other times you should just take the time and design and impliment a new one...


And regardles of these three points, isn't changing the funding system a step for the better? (even if minimal in you're opinion)

[Arrian]

I would be up for changing the funding system, sure. I'm just pointing out that there are other components beyond the money. Cultural issues, such as a "culture of corruption" or a culture of "trying in school is bad" and so on and so forth.

The problem with inner city schools, IMO, is the overal environment the students inhabit. The parents matter a whole lot, and there isn't much the state can do about that.

The state can approach funding inner city schools properly, and that would be nice (to the extent that the funding is spent properly, instead of stolen by local politicians). But ultimately students will only learn if they want to learn and are expected to learn (by their parents and/or others they may look up to). This is true in affluent school districts too. The difference is that it's generally less tolerated there, and the environment is safer and more conducive to getting at least a decent education.

-Arrian

[East Street Trader]

We have quite a problem with public secondary education in England at present.

When I was young people tended to send their children to the local school. Then an idea appeared that said that people should be informed about standards achieved in schools and we introduced testing of children at various ages as they passed through school. This was not to provide the individual children with a qualification or (primarily) to show the individual children how they were doing as compared to their peers. Rather it was so as to have some information to allow comparison of the academic standards being achieved in different schools.

Hard to argue against this simple idea.

Even harder to argue about another simple idea which emerged at about the same time; that parents should be able to express a preference as to the school their children attend.

Sad to say the combination of annually published league tables showing how pupils from all the schools perform and the ability of parents to try to get their children into the higher performing schools has produced a mess.

Schools who, for the time being, appear high in the league tables are very heavily oversubscibed each year; they have up to 14 applicants for each available place. They must find a set of criteria so as fairly to allocate available places. This leads to much manoevring and heart ache. Meanwhile schools who appear lower in the league tables get lower calibre pupils and are not full. Because they have spaces available troublemakers expelled from other schools are placed with them. They get onto a downward spiral and can become what have come to be called "sink schools".

Meanwhile local authorities find it very hard to plan properly. Demographics tells them where to expect how many children but with the children migrating around trying to get into the higher performing schools the local authorities cannot plan to provide the right number of school places in the right geographical localities.

All this taught me a lesson. It is that no matter how unarguably right a political proposition sounds (parents should be able to express a preference as to which school their children attend) you actually have to think through the ramifications in order to know whether the seemingly clear proposition is actually a good idea or not.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian
I would be up for changing the funding system, sure. I'm just pointing out that there are other components beyond the money. Cultural issues, such as a "culture of corruption" or a culture of "trying in school is bad" and so on and so forth.

The problem with inner city schools, IMO, is the overal environment the students inhabit. The parents matter a whole lot, and there isn't much the state can do about that.

The state can approach funding inner city schools properly, and that would be nice (to the extent that the funding is spent properly, instead of stolen by local politicians). But ultimately students will only learn if they want to learn and are expected to learn (by their parents and/or others they may look up to). This is true in affluent school districts too. The difference is that it's generally less tolerated there, and the environment is safer and more conducive to getting at least a decent education.

-Arrian

Good point, the culture of corruption is spread far beyond the employes who can be replaced.

And I suppose you are right that a big problem is the fact that poor kids aren't encouraged to learn not even from their parents, they may be infact discouraged, quite strongly so.

I suppose it could have something to do with poor social mobility, that can factor in as both a cause and effect... Since in shuch a chases there is little contact between the lower classes and the middle classes, leading to a "culture of poverty".

BTW So if you and most Americans agree changing the funding is a good idea why isn't it done? Small steps can make differences and are easier to coerc from power structures and coservative voters that large scale reform...

[Arrian]

I am not "most Americans." I don't think my opinion is necessarily the majority.

A majority would probably answer "yes" if you asked if the public school system needed to be overhauled. But once you get to the nitty gritty of exactly HOW it should be done, that majority will break down into lots of factions.

The affluent people are not going to get excited about either:

a) paying more taxes to pour more money into the system; or

b) social engineering policies designed to mix their kids with the kids currently attending failing urban schools, which generally involves busing students around to different schools (because the affluent, predominantly white, kids live in the suburbs).

The most affluent will continue to opt out and go to private school. The folks in the middle will be pissed off about being forced to do a, b or both.

Meanwhile, many of the poor simply aren't involved in the political process (don't vote, or otherwise participate).

edit: small steps, you say. Like what? Giving to educational charity, for instance? That I've done. Volunteering as a tutor? That I as yet have not done. Or are you talking about something else?

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
... or even just vote for the party that has educational reform in its program?

Every California guberatorial candidate for as long as I can remember says that education is the number one priority. I gave up believing them the day Deukmajian was elected governor, and the first thing he did was to institute tuition at community colleges, which of course, caused their enrollment to plummet.

[Japher]

CA public schools are messed up, UCs excepted.

Around here most of the schools are under funded because of a lack of successful bond measures, stupid parents, and corrupt school board members... but at least it's not the governor messing it up.