Bad neighborhoods and poor schools.

It is such be damned attitudes that help keep the status quo.

I think that a vicious circle develops. If you have a bad neighborhood, chances are it is the result of poverty, broken families, and in general, people who are not terribly successful in their lives.

Children in these neighborhoods tend to have more discipline problems, whether it is on account of genetics, environment, or most likely a combination of both.

A large group of children coming from dysfunctional homes set the tone of a school. Aspirations are low, and discipline problems are high. This is not a very positive environment for a teacher, as this kind of work can be extremely stressful. As a result, many excellent teachers will avoid working in bad neighborhoods, and the school will end up with an overabundance mediocre instructors.

I think that it is the responsibility of the parents to create the kinds of neighborhoods where their children can flourish. I don't think that the infusion of government funds will do much for an area which is blighted. It is not the responsibility of government to raise a child properly. The parents need to mirror appropriate values for their kids.

Often, you hear success stories of kids who have raised themselves out of blighted areas, and made something of their lives. It is true, that some were inspired by an exceptional teacher. But in most cases it was the parents who taught the value of hard work, thrift, and the delay of gratification that made the difference. It is the parents who spent time with their kids, showing them that their IS a good life beyond the constraints of the place where they were raised, that there is hope for a better future if a child works for it, that makes the difference.

There is also the simple financial aspect. Poor neighborhoods mean lower-than-average teacher salaries. If a new teacher is offered a job in Rich Suburb for $50,000/ year and a job at Poor Neighborhood for $30,000/ year, guess which job looks more attractive? So Poor Neighborhood tends to get the bottom-of-the-barrel teachers, the ones who don't get any other offers.

And the idealists. God bless the idealists, but they tend to burn out fast.

That is not true in NYC. Poor schools have been created by the students. The best highscools in the city have been destroyed by the pupils that attend them. It is impossible to teach those who do not want to learn. I should also note that they steal the education from those who want to.

What is a "poor" school? Usually people use "poor" as a measure of $$ and I think if you do the research you'll find that for the most part the we spend more per student on schools in bad neighboorhoods than we do for schools in good neighborhoods.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of where that money is going.

fishin
Poor schools are those schools that turn out a poor product. I should add tht bad neighborhoods are those that are crime ridden.

Who is "we," here? Those who pay income tax? Those who pay property tax?

I don't know a lot about the NYC school district, but in general property taxes have a lot to do with how much money a given district receives. (Higher property taxes -- either as a proportion or because houses are worth more -- usually equals more money for the school district.)



I agree.

It is not money it is the respect for learning that has not been instilled in children by their parents.

"It" is not any one thing. Lack of money can have very definite consequences. (Less-skilled teachers especially but also less resources, etc.) Lack of respect for learning can have consequences too, of course. Then there are many more aspects as well.

I'm really surprised then that you see that "we spend more per student on schools in bad neighboorhoods than we do for schools in good neighborhoods." The only reason that springs to mind is if there are a lot of students with disabilties in those "bad" neighborhoods.

Any sources/ stats?

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/ppx.aspx

That is the MA state listing of school distritcs with several figures as far including per pupil expenditures for 2006.

From those we can see that Boston spends $14,974/student while nearby Belmont spends $10,374, Arlington spends $8,842 and Lexington spends $12,600.

Quincy spends $11,462 while Braintree (next door) spends $9,729.

Springfield (which are probably the worst schools in the state) spends $11,420/student while Longmeadow spends $9,968.

Lawrence spends $11,595/student while next door North Andover spends $9,153.

In every one of these examples the first school district and neighborhoods mentioned is pretty much universially considered worse than those following it.

And I've seen this same sort of thing for other states as well. Some of it is probably a higher cost for buildings and utilities, etc.. and I'd guess there are other cost issues too. I'd just like to see the breakout of what they all are on a chart similar to the one I linked.

For example, from the same site I can find average teacher salaries by school district as well:
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/teachersalaries.aspx

Interesting, thanks for getting some stats.

I'm still interested in how that breaks down -- disabilities, etc. -- but just have a minute now, will come back to it.

In Ohio, the funding of schools became an issue which the State Supreme Court visited, and that Court found that schools in Ohio were inequitably funded, and the last that i read about the issue, the Court was not satisfied that the Legislature had adequately addressed the subject.

In Ohio, schools are supported from the general revenue of the local government entities which govern the respective school districts. There is in Ohio a School District Income Tax. When an employer hires a new employee, that employer is responsible for assuring that the employee completes a state withholding form (similar to the Federal Form W4), and one piece of information required is the school district number. In municipalities which have an income tax, as many of them do, the employee has a percentage of their gross pay withheld for the city income tax--for example, in Columbus, Ohio, that tax is 2% of gross. In other jurisdictions, the employee many have an amount any where from 1/4 of 1% to 2% of their gross income withheld for the School District Income Tax. It is the employers obligation to contact the local Board of Elections to find out what school district the newly hired employee lives in, and to withhold and remit a School District Income Tax if it is applicable.

In addition, local boards can and do hold bond referendums to provide funds for the renovation of existing facilities, or the building of new facilities. This would be in addition to the municipal income tax withheld, or the school district income tax. So, for example, in the case of one of my employers for whom i did the payroll accounting, i would withhold the 2% of gross for all employees which was payable to the municipality in which the business was located. Additionally, some of the employees were liable for school district income tax--so for one of them, i would withhold 3/4 of 1% of their gross income for the Fairfield Union School District, which was in addition to the 2% withheld for the municipality. That employee was also a property owner, and would have been liable for any levy passed by referendum for the F-U Schools.

All of which is to say that for some school districts, the well would be deep and rich, and for others, very, very poor. The town in which our business was located got 2% of gross of all the payroll for the business, a certain amount of which general revenue would have been applied to their schools. In addition, any property owners in the district would have been liable for assessment in any levies which passed a referendum. But other school districts, with a scant property tax base, and no municipal taxes or other municipal general revenue to rely on, would have only the School District Income Tax to rely upon, and the funds allocated by the State of Ohio. Wealthier districts had more sources of funding, and more lucrative sources of income (large property tax base, for example) to add to state funding. Poor school districts were unlikely to raise additional funds, lacking the lucrative property tax base, and probably not able to tap municipal taxes from employees and employers within the district.

The situation lead the Ohio Supreme Court to describe the situation as feudal. A time magazine article wrote:



(Source at About-dot-com.)

The constitution of Ohio requires the state to provide adequate education. The state Supreme Court found that the Legislature's funding methods failed to provide the mandated adequate education, and that therefore, the state's funding plan (which derives from legislation) was unconstitutional. The majority opinion of the Court in DeRolph et al., versus The State of Ohio can be read at the page linked here. The response of the Legislature has been to commission studies, and to determine, almost from one year to the next, that students in Ohio can be efficiently and adequately educated for an increasingly smaller amount of money per capita. To my knowledge, the State has consistently failed to stop the Perry County court which was the source of the original appeal from ordering the school board to provide more funds, and the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals from the orders of the Perry County court. Effectively, the Supreme Court of Ohio has inferentially said that the State continues to fail to meet its constitutional duty to provide all children an adequate education. From the point of view of payroll taxes, you'd never know that anything had changed.

New Figures Show High Dropout Rate
Federal Officials Say Problem Is Worst For Urban Schools, Minority Males

By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 10, 2007; Page A06


First lady Laura Bush and national education leaders yesterday unveiled an online database that promises to provide parents across much of the nation the first accurate appraisal of how many students graduate from high school on time in each school system.

The statistics paint a dire portrait: Seventy percent of students nationwide earned diplomas in four years as of 2003, the latest data available nationally, a much lower rate than that reported by the vast majority of school systems. According to the database, Washington area graduation rates ranged from 94 percent in Loudoun and Falls Church to a low of 59 percent in the District, with most other systems falling in the 60s, 70s and low 80s.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said the data show that half of the nation's dropouts come from a small group of largely urban "dropout factories," high schools "where graduation is a 50-50 shot or worse." She scolded state and local education officials for masking the problem by publishing inflated graduation rates based on bad math.

"We are finally moving from a state of denial to a state of acknowledgment," she said, speaking in Washington at a summit titled America's Silent Epidemic. "It's hard to believe such a pervasive problem has remained in the shadows for so long."

Most states, including Virginia, Maryland and the District, continue to report graduation rates by a method that, while accepted by the federal government, has been rejected by much of the academic community and was roundly criticized yesterday by federal officials. They estimate the graduation rate based on the number of students known to have dropped out. The problem is, few public high schools track every student who drops out.

"In some states," Spellings said, "a student is counted as a dropout only if he registers as a dropout. That's unlikely."

The publication of the new national database, compiled by the trade journal Education Week, signals a sweeping change in how graduates are counted. The site tabulates graduation data for school systems based on simple attrition, tracking the dwindling size of a high school class from the fall of freshman year to graduation day.

Bush, in a lunchtime speech, urged the nation's parents to consult the database and "find out if your community has a dropout problem."

The summit marks a growing national sense that high schools are facing a dropout crisis. The extent of the problem -- only two students in three graduate with their class -- has been clear for years within the education community but not among members of the general public, who, according to surveys, believe that nearly 90 percent of students graduate from high school.

Speakers stressed that dropout rates are particularly high among black and Hispanic students, especially males.

Prince George's County schools reported a 90 percent graduation rate for 2003. The new database shows a graduation rate of 67 percent for that system. More than half of the dropouts, it shows, never make it to the 10th grade.

Montgomery schools reported a 93 percent graduation rate for that year, but the database puts it at 82 percent. In that county, the database shows, the largest group of dropouts exits the system during 12th grade.

The District reported a graduation rate of 71 percent for 2003. The new database calculates the true graduation rate at a dozen points lower, with a steady exodus across the grades.

All 50 governors have embraced the new method -- a slight variation on the formula employed by Education Week -- for calculating graduation rates. Virginia schools will use the new formula by 2008, the District by 2010 and Maryland by 2011. Parents will probably see a precipitous drop in graduation rates reported by many high schools.

"I think you have to be honest with the people," said Mike Easley (D), governor of North Carolina, who participated in a panel discussion yesterday with two other governors.

Spellings also announced that graduation rates will be incorporated into the federal No Child Left Behind law by 2012 as a measure of adequate yearly progress for every high school, along with test scores and other factors.

Schools will have to meet federal targets for black and Hispanic students and other statistical subgroups, as well, a requirement likely to stir considerable anxiety in low-performing school systems.

Jynell Harrison, a 19-year-old graduate of Central High School in Providence, R.I., who is black, lamented her school district's 54 percent graduation rate and said, "I almost got lost, too."


So the changed the reporting system. What needs change is to be able to make parents. Parents

An interesting tidbit on the numbers I mentioned earlier.

I went through and put all of the expenditure numbers the State of MA has into a spreadsheet and then added more columns for how schools performed on on the State's MCAS testing system and a few other sources.

Uisng all of those mnubers I was able to generate some averages and then sort school systems by whether they were undre or over the average in any given area.

The total of things is way to big to post here but here are a few highlights:

Of the bottom 25, 13 would be considered "Urban" school distritcs. There are no such districts in the top 25. The top 25 are all suburban districts.

Total Per Pupil expenditures:

Average of the bottom 25 school districts: $12,062.75 (15 were above the state average, 10 were below)
Average of the top 25 school districts: $11,301.00 (12 were above the state average, 13 were below.)

Where does the difference in those numbers come from?? Beleve it or not - teacher benefits.

Of the bottom 25 school systems, 17 spend above the state average for benefits (including retirement) averaging $1,931.81 per student per year.

For the top 25 shcool systems, only 4 spend above the state average and they average $1,324.32 per student per year.

This is the only major stand-out item that comes up to explain the overall spending difference. Within the numbers though there is something else. The bottom 25 schools spend much more on "school suipplies" and "professional development" than the top 25 and much less on guidenace counseling services.

IOW, the bottom 25 school systems are spending more on teachers/staff while the top school systems are spending that money on the students themselves.