Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 290 posts

Re: Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

#151

Post by lukeschlather »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #128
lukeschlather wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sidestepped my point. Segregating all the underperformers into one place causes harm and you're ignoring that harm, assuming that the benefit of segregating the high performers is more important. And you are in fact crediting the charter school with the benefit while ensuring that public schools receive blame for any harm that results. I think you're actually arguing against universal instruction, that we shouldn…

I don't think I'm ignoring the harm. I am accepting it. We can get into the utilitarian calculus, but before even considering that I don't think it's acceptable to force students who want to succeed into classrooms with those that don't. And really that's the end of the story for me. Maybe the total outcome is worse because the kicked out students cause much bigger problems than they would otherwise but that doesn't…

> I don't think it's acceptable to force students who want to succeed into classrooms with those that don't

Now you're ascribing a specific cause and moralizing, assuming that it's harder for some subset of students because they want to fail, and that they deserve to fail. The utilitarian calculus does matter, you feel fine dooming some set of kids to a poor education because you think they deserve it.

No child deserves a poor education. We do have to choose who we prioritize and I don't really think your analysis of who "deserves" more help is sound.

Re: Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

#152

Post by chaostheory »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #39
HDThoreaun wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Education is mostly about your peers. It's obviously true for prestigious universities but it's just as true for elementary schools. Charter schools kicking out problematic students isn't some loophole, it's the main point, and it absolutely can improve the education for those that remain. My district has a quarter of high schoolers in charter schools. Almost all of them under the poverty line. It's not like they're…

> Charter schools kicking out problematic students isn't some loophole, it's the main point, and it absolutely can improve the education for those that remain. If you kick out the problematic students, the only students you have left are easy to teach non-problematic students. > and it absolutely can improve the education for those that remain. It isn't mysterious: you selected the best students, so your results will…

The problem 10% bring down everyone else by monopolizing teacher attention. Let’s also not forget that many of these problem students are extremely violent with broken homes. Many of them eventually get transferred to prisons masquerading as schools, but that can take time, and long after they’ve done the damage to everyone else.

Re: Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

#153

Post by Scubabear68 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #137
Scubabear68 wrote: post #14

It's not a high bar to beat, at least here in New Jersey. Nearly all of our school boards are non-professional, non-compensated elected officials, and a large percentage of Superintendents started their career as gym teachers. The net result is schools that hire hoards of consultants to try to meet professional standards, but fail anyway, while spending vast sums of tax payer dollars. Covid funds earmarked towards br…

Are you voting out the bad and ineffective actors in your local school system?

We are trying. It is very difficult though, the most effective people don’t want the job, and the Board pushes “feel good” politics on everyone, and they do the best they can to hide bad news (although sunshine laws thwarts that if you know how to dig and where to look).

Use of software like Board docks makes finding info 10x harder as well, what a steaming pile of crap that is.

Re: Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

#154

Post by tcbawo »

lukeschlather wrote: post #114
HDThoreaun wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that the students who don't get accepted into the selective schools need better options. It's just when the options are keep all the students together or separate them and some will become better and some will become worse I think providing the students who want to succeed with a way to accomplish their goals is the correct choice. Hopefully there will be another option that isn't so exclusionary in the fu…

You sidestepped my point. Segregating all the underperformers into one place causes harm and you're ignoring that harm, assuming that the benefit of segregating the high performers is more important. And you are in fact crediting the charter school with the benefit while ensuring that public schools receive blame for any harm that results. I think you're actually arguing against universal instruction, that we shouldn…

Equating underperforming students with disciplinary problem students seems to be a common problem in this thread. There are many underperforming students who would perform much better without being subjected to a threatening or harassing environment. Public schools attempt to provide universal education, which is at direct odds with bad-faith students that poison the well. In fact, in some places where this is legal, public schools get better when they can expel criminal minors into the charter system. Separating the worst offenders from the other students might also match these students with resources that are most equipped to help them (eg. counselors that might help to reduce gang violence).

Re: Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

#155

Post by femiagbabiaka »

linuxftw wrote: post #138
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t believe that public schooling, an actually lindy institution worldwide , an institution that was working quite well in the US up until about the 70s and 80s (wonder what happened then hmm) that has produced world renowned schools in the US in particular, is more of a house of cards than the Potemkin village that is charter and private schools.

You'll need to provide evidence that public schools were working well in the 70s and 80s. Graduation rates today are higher than those decades. High school was optional for many parts of the country. The reason for the outcry now, is that we measure everything, and even the wealthier areas of the country are unable to perform to any reasonable standard.

Note: not working well in the 70s and 80s, working will up until the 70s and 80s. But gladly, this is a great resource: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf.

Combine with this: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1804780.

At the exact point in our history that we should've accelerated spending in public resources we did an about face in the opposite direction towards privatization and the growth of the administrator class. All of our institutions (healthcare, finance, infrastructure, education, etc.) have been low-productivity money pits since then.

Re: Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

#156

Post by moate »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #17
Spinnaker_ wrote: post #8

I think this can be misleading in the same way some charter school results are. The easiest way to improve a school's results isn't to improve the education provided, it's to get rid of the worst performing kids. Charter schools do this by various selection effects, and artificial barriers, like ending at noon on a Wednesday. So the only kids who go there have two parents, one who probably is stay at home and can pic…

Education is mostly about your peers. It's obviously true for prestigious universities but it's just as true for elementary schools. Charter schools kicking out problematic students isn't some loophole, it's the main point, and it absolutely can improve the education for those that remain. My district has a quarter of high schoolers in charter schools. Almost all of them under the poverty line. It's not like they're…

“Allowing poor students from families that value education to go to schools with like minded students is an unequivocally good thing compared to what the public schools currently do.“

If this were unequivocal, people like me wouldn’t fundamentally hate the concept of charter schools. You think “one bad apple spoils the bunch” and that’s an observed effect not a law of nature.

You can like charter schools, but don’t pretend that privatization of public resources for means tested approved individuals is an absolute virtue. The world is complicated.

Re: Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

#157

Post by smolder »

linuxftw wrote: post #138
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t believe that public schooling, an actually lindy institution worldwide , an institution that was working quite well in the US up until about the 70s and 80s (wonder what happened then hmm) that has produced world renowned schools in the US in particular, is more of a house of cards than the Potemkin village that is charter and private schools.

You'll need to provide evidence that public schools were working well in the 70s and 80s. Graduation rates today are higher than those decades. High school was optional for many parts of the country. The reason for the outcry now, is that we measure everything, and even the wealthier areas of the country are unable to perform to any reasonable standard.

Graduation rates don't actually reflect on the quality of education, I don't think, unless you're controlling for a lot of other variables. I don't typically see people controlling for them, e.g. a politician might brag that graduation rates are up in their district, arguing that education has improved, while ignoring the underlying reason that standardized tests got easier or the schools spent more time test-prepping and less time educating.

Re: Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

#158

Post by christophilus »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #85
sokoloff wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> entails using funds set aside for public schools That’s one framing. Another framing is “using funds set aside to educate the children of the district”. If you frame the funding as being for the schools rather than for the children’s education , you naturally object to it being spent elsewhere. Are we trying to run public schools or trying to educate children in the district? (My kids attended public schools.)

Segregationists tried using that framing back in the 1960s/70s, but it the argument was ruled invalid by the Warren-led Supreme Court. Who knows what would happen these days, however.

Joel Greenblatt has schools that focus almost entirely on low income / underprivileged students. Their results were really good last I checked (pre-COVID, so things may have changed). It doesn’t have to be about one race vs another. Choice can be good for all.

Edit: I should note, I think he doesn’t focus on race, but I got the impression that his students are predominantly minorities.

Re: Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

#159

Post by diogenes4 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #17
Spinnaker_ wrote: post #8

I think this can be misleading in the same way some charter school results are. The easiest way to improve a school's results isn't to improve the education provided, it's to get rid of the worst performing kids. Charter schools do this by various selection effects, and artificial barriers, like ending at noon on a Wednesday. So the only kids who go there have two parents, one who probably is stay at home and can pic…

Education is mostly about your peers. It's obviously true for prestigious universities but it's just as true for elementary schools. Charter schools kicking out problematic students isn't some loophole, it's the main point, and it absolutely can improve the education for those that remain. My district has a quarter of high schoolers in charter schools. Almost all of them under the poverty line. It's not like they're…

> It's obviously true for prestigious universities

This is a hard argument to make when the use of the gentleman's c is more widespread the more prestigious the school is. Driven students certainly attend prestigious institutions, but overall the prestige of the school a person attended is a very poor signal for the abilities of the person. I transferred from a prestigious private university to a large public university and didn't notice any major difference in the quality of students. The quality of the classes? yes—class size was a major difference. But the students seemed just as sharp in both settings, especially in upper-level classes.

Frankly, the major obvious difference was just money. Prestigious, private universities have rich kids in spades. I didn't notice any correlation between the money and the abilities of the person, though. At the end of the day the connections with those kids are where the university you attend really pays off.

Re: Schools for children of military achieve results rarely seen in public education

#160

Post by lotsofpulp »

lukeschlather wrote: post #99
HDThoreaun wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It isn't mysterious: you selected the best students, so your results will be the best. You're implying that individual results don't change by grouping the good students together. In your vision the good students stay good and the bad stay bad. I don't agree. The good students become great by surrounding them with other good students.

If that's true then the converse is also true: bad students become bad by surrounding them with other bad students. And the charter school gets to take credit for the "good" outcome while the public school gets blamed for the bad outcome that is a direct result of the good outcome. Which, if we accept your premise, suggests that the charter schools aren't providing any net benefit, they're just taking credit. If this…

> If that's true then the converse is also true: bad students become bad by surrounding them with other bad students.

The converse does not have to be true, only the contrapositive.

And in the case of a human’s tendencies, it is easier to become less disciplined than it is to become more disciplined. Bad habits are easier and likelier to pickup than good habits. Forming a tight knit high trust family/community is much more difficult than dissolving it. Etc.

Post reply on HN