181–190 of 290 posts
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…
According to the article, the Dod educates 66k students. That's less than half the size of my county. Yet, the comparison is DoD vs states, not the more useful DoD vs counties (or some unit closer in size). I'd love to see how DoD schools compare against top-notch school systems. And average school systems (in case the quality of country school districts isn't a bell curve for some reason).
The #1 public school in the US is Thomas Jefferson in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). FCPS is a suburb of DC, and a fantastic amount of the kids there are children of military servicemembers and FedGov civilians. A lot of those well paid contractors are former military as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another factor is that the military parents have cleared a bar of pre-enlistment testing (ASVAB?) that has strong correlations with IQ testing.
maybe on the officer level, but you don't need a particularly high ASVAB score to drive a truck or be a cook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US it used to be more acceptable to put students in classes based on where they were academically and in terms of behavior. Truly disruptive kids were also usually suspended until eventually being expelled. Neither approach is considered appropriate anymore. It was a central thesis of No Child Left Behind, which is/was nice in theory, but not in practice. Now schools are data obsessed. Bad metrics like suspens…
> The reality is that if you want good schools you need to cut your losses with the worst behaving kids. This kind of attitude is a wide-open door for racist and classist attitudes to penalize kids of color, kids from poor homes, kids with unsafe or unstable home situations. Suspending and expelling kids almost always makes things worse for those kids. There are HUGE racial and gender disparities in the rates of susp…
Because there are huge racial and gender disparities in problem behavior. The bleeding hearts don't seem to care about the kids that suffer in a classroom that is being constantly disrupted by these problem kids, many of those suffering being underprivileged minorities. Whatever the solution is to these kids that "need more support not less", the cost shouldn't be borne by the kids that come to school everyday wanting to learn. This idea that society must endlessly prostrate itself to the least privileged is a failed ideology.
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…
Obviously and predictably, his startup charter succeeded -- wildly! -- but, to hear him tell it, a charter dropped into a struggling district absolutely will. It just does so at the expense of the district, because it pulls away the kids with motivated, supportive, engaged parents.
Turns out: motivated, supportive, engaged parenting is one of the absolutely best predictors of student educational achievement. Who knew?
So, sure, charters hurt districts, but the takeaway isn't just educational policy. It notes how intersectional these problems inevitably are. Poverty is going to make it super hard, for example, for a parent to be as involved and engaged as they might be with more of a safety net.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Military households and the dependas that inhabit them aren't the stable footing you are imagining. The worst marriage stories I've heard happen under those circumstances.
There are many schools where over 70% of kids live in single parents households. I'm sure you have bad stories, but it's not comparable overall.
Obviously the military provides some sort of economic lower bound. But it also applies a pretty harsh upper bound, and has all sorts of other effects that you would expect to push the mean down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why offering parents more choices in how their children are taught could be a bad thing. Maybe the public school system is failing its students. However, it always seemed unfair to trap parents who would otherwise have other options in a failing system. Yes, this does suck for the children of uncaring parents - but for the parents who DO care, shouldn't they have a means of meeting their obligation…
> I don't understand why offering parents more choices in how their children are taught could be a bad thing. I am going to give my kid all the advantages I can, of course. But...personal optimization != societal optimization. Yes, I can put my kid in a better spot to succeed, but we aren't making progress as a society, things are getting very much worse actually (e.g. income inequality). > Yes, this does suck for th…
Many European systems have been thriving for decades with different school options for different students, based on interest, aptitude, etc. We'd be far better off as a society if we had one classroom for the 8th graders who read at a 1st grade level and one classroom for the 8th graders ready for Infinite Jest. The curriculum and instruction could then be tailored to the needs of each group. Instead, we lump them all together and end up with an outcome where the majority of the students are underperforming their potential.
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…
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…
It is both a loophole and the main point. It's the main point for people who want their children to succeed at the expense of the rest of society and it's a loophole when they try to sell that concept to the rest of society as "we can teach better for cheaper so give us your tax money and let us replace universal public education" rather than "we have thrown some of your children on the scrapheap for you to expensive…
They are the minority. They clearly don't function well in the conventional school setting. They are struggling to learn the material. They learn how to disrupt though, and how the grown-ups around them are powerless. They learn to be constantly blamed, and feel miserable, defiant, or both. A lot of wrong lessons.
This makes the lives of these disruptive kids worse. Being in a public school robs them of a chance to become decent people and get an education. These kids should receive a special education, tailored to their special needs, like e.g. autistic kids get a special education.
It's very straightforward to fix public schools, but, in my view:
* few people actually want to know what the problems are,
* only a fraction of those people will speak up and say something about addressing the problems, and
* only a small fraction of those people would have the wherewithal to actually push for the solutions to be implemented.
Fact is, good teachers are constantly being driven out of the profession. It's just too arduous and heartbreaking, and every year it gets worse.