The Problem We All Live With (The Other Story of Michael Brown)

[Loren Pechtel]

They're being stopped because it would be a bad thing to offer a rigorous class to students who aren't prepared for it.

Once again, the evidence is against you on this case. And that even ignoring your bizzarre assumption that a school exists -- or even COULD exist -- in which none of its students are prepared for a rigorous education.

They're called inner city schools. Without the parental support few kids are going to learn no matter how good the teachers.

- - - Updated - - -

If this were true moving students into a better school would help them. Emphasis on the if.

Are you saying that moving a student to a better school won't help them?

It's been proven to be useless at the grade school/high school transition.

 

[laughing dog]

It's been proven to be useless at the grade school/high school transition.

When, who and how has it been proven? If you do not provide a link to disinterested information, your claim is nothing more than a burp.

 

[Playball40]

Ha ha ha - Florida is it's own country!!

Uh huh.

What does 15 points difference on one test mean for the life chances of people?

Quite a lot.

 

[ronburgundy]

Once again, the evidence is against you on this case. And that even ignoring your bizzarre assumption that a school exists -- or even COULD exist -- in which none of its students are prepared for a rigorous education.

They're called inner city schools. Without the parental support few kids are going to learn no matter how good the teachers.

Beware of rhetorical traps. Crazy Eddie distorted your comment (which was similar to my own) into a strawman which presumes that you are claiming that rigorous classes are not offered as much in black schools because "none of its students are prepared". Nothing you (or I ) said implies this. It is fully sufficient that merely fewer students in those schools are prepared compared to the "white" or integrated schools, thus there are more classrooms where too many students would be left behind and fail if rigorous expectations were made and enforced.

Not surprisingly, Eddie, Athena, and Laughing dog ignore the clear empirical fact that more students in those schools are not well prepared for a rigorous course, even though the entire OP is based on data showing this. The whole point of the OP is that kids in mostly black schools get worse grades, perform more poorly on standardized tests, and generally do not learn as much as kids in mostly white schools. That is why integration helps. Not learning as well in your prior courses is a defining feature of not being well prepared for rigorous work in your current and future classes.

It is a clear fact that more students in the black schools are less prepared. That is the whole problem that calls for integration is trying to fix. It is undeniable that this lesser preparation would force their current and future teachers to offer less rigorous courses to avoid leaving too many students behind or failing them. This means that the % of kids in these classes that are prepared, do not get the opportunity due to their classmates, and when they are moved to a school with better prepared students, they do get the opportunity and they learn more. Of course, some of the black kids that are moved are among those not prepared, so they don't see much benefit. That is why the data only shows aggregated improvements for kids who switch to more integrated schools and not equal improvements to all the kids who switched.

The question is WHY are they less prepared and why have they learned less leading up to their current classes?
For some of them, it is because their prior classes were limited by their classmates lack of preparation or behavioral problems. IOW, their own traits related to ability and motivation are not at issue, only the classroom context they have been in which includes things like teachers and resources but also includes the context created by their classmates.
But that requires that some of those classmates have limitations not directly tied to the classroom context, but to their own more general traits and/or contextual factors outside the classroom. To explain the "gap" in question, they have to be factors correlated with being black in the modern USA, but that still leaves countless factors from biology (not necessarily genes but even in-utero stressors and nutrition) to early childhood language exposure, to cultural views about school, to more proximal environmental factors related to SES.

Basically, the categories of factors that could and likely do contribute to lower performance of black kids in majority black schools are:
Features of the schools in general (facilities, resources, administration).
The specific teachers and their methods.
The intellectual preparedness of their classmates.
The motivations of their classmates.
The disruptive behavior of their classmates.
The expectations of their classmates' parents.
The relationship those parents' have with the school and teacher.
The resources and time those parents have to help their kids and keep them on track.
The intellectual preparedness of those parents to be able to help their kids learn the material.

All of them could easily be correlated with being black in the USA, and all have evidence showing that they impact student learning. Of these 9 factors, the OP and its defenders myopically focus on only the first 2 and ignore or deny the other 7. They thereby deny any role that the students or their parents play in student learning. This unreasonable denial is likely out of a misplaced notion that acknowledging these factors is to affirm biological racism, when in fact their relation to race could be entirely indirect via SES and general environmental and historical factors other than those directly related to school and teacher differences already mentioned.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Once again, the evidence is against you on this case. And that even ignoring your bizzarre assumption that a school exists -- or even COULD exist -- in which none of its students are prepared for a rigorous education.

They're called inner city schools. Without the parental support few kids are going to learn no matter how good the teachers.

So none of the kids in inner city schools have "parental support?"
So none of the kids in inner city schools are capable of learning?

So you really expect me not to notice what the term "inner city" is an allusion to?

It's been proven to be useless at the grade school/high school transition.

Source please, because this looks like bullshit.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not surprisingly, Eddie, Athena, and Laughing dog ignore the clear empirical fact that more students in those schools are not well prepared for a rigorous course

Nobody's ignoring that at all. In fact, the focus in this case is the fact that students who ARE well prepared for rigorous courses do not have access to those courses in their schools BECAUSE of this assumption. More importantly, students who are not prepared are not given the resources to BECOME prepared, while their suburban counterparts have and make extensive use of.

It's hardly a "trap" it's just a matter of fairness. If the Downtown high school has 4,000 students and 200 of them would benefit from AP classes, you're doing a disservice to those students by failing to offer those classes. Still more importantly, tutoring programs including study habit training, time management training, motivational training and even simple occupational mentorship can dramatically improve student achievement in that same school; the number may go from 200 to 600, and then how do you justify eliminating advanced placement classes?

And that's not a rhetorical question. IN PRACTICE, it falls back to the same rhetoric LP uses as a matter of course. "Inner city students," we are told, aren't prepared to handle those programs, so funding them is a waste of time. Educators and administrators will produce reams of data contradicting this and will even produce whole groups of students that are living proof to the contrary and politicians and demagogues with their own agenda will repeat the same tired counterfactual lines again and again.

For the purpose of this thread, this rhetoric can be referred to as "The Pechtel Theory." That theory is summarized thus:
"The students who attend 'inner city schools' are unprepared for advanced classes and are incapable of benefiting from education because they are raised in a 'culture of poverty,' their parents are disinterested and their values are too dysfunctional to support academic achievement. These students are the norm in these schools and students who do not exhibit these characteristics, may achieve some measure of success, but are only successful in comparison to their peers."

It is a clear fact that more students in the black schools are less prepared. That is the whole problem that calls for integration is trying to fix.

Do you even understand why integration of schools was sought and achieved in the 1960s? Or are you honestly seeking to convince us that "separate but equal" was actually a good idea after all?

The question is WHY are they less prepared and why have they learned less leading up to their current classes?

Because of the widespread adoption of the Pechtel Theory in public education funding priorities. The assumption is that "inner city students" are going to fail no matter what, so it's better to make sure schools in good neighborhoods are properly funded and the poorer schools can make due with whatever's left over.

Basically, the categories of factors that could and likely do contribute to lower performance of black kids in majority black schools are:
Features of the schools in general (facilities, resources, administration).
The specific teachers and their methods.
The intellectual preparedness of their classmates.
The motivations of their classmates.
The disruptive behavior of their classmates.
The expectations of their classmates' parents.
The relationship those parents' have with the school and teacher.
The resources and time those parents have to help their kids and keep them on track.
The intellectual preparedness of those parents to be able to help their kids learn the material.

And we've heard all of this before. The basic assumption is that those students are destined to fail, so improving funding for their schools is necessarily a waste of money.

All of them could easily be correlated with being black in the USA, and all have evidence showing that they impact student learning. Of these 9 factors, the OP and its defenders myopically focus on only the first 2 and ignore or deny the other 7.

The impact of the other 7 is why supplemental programs -- tutoring, after school programs and mentorship programs -- have been implemented by faculty and administrators whenever possible. It's also the reason why those programs are as effective as they are:

1) The (lack of) motivation of their classmates can be overcome by providing an external source of support and encouragement independent of one's peer group
2) The disruptive behavior of their classmates comes to be seen AS disruptive behavior and not as "normal" conduct for a student who otherwise has no other reference point to evaluate it.
3) The expectations of their classmates' parents becomes far less important than the expectations of ones mentors and teachers. A positive adult role model who expects you to perform need not BE a parent or relative for those expectations to have significance.
4) The relationship those parents' have with the school and teacher ceases to be as important in the presence of a tutor or a mentor. Suburban parents have discovered a similar phenomenon with full-time nannies.
5) The resources and time those parents have to help their kids and keep them on track, once again, ceases to be as important as the resources of the mentor and/or tutoring program the student is a part of. A parent who may be working two jobs cannot devote the same attention to a child as a tutor whose only job is to keep the child focussed and on track.
6) The intellectual preparedness of those parents to be able to help their kids learn the material is, yet again, less important than the preparedness of the tutor or mentor.

The basic assumption of the Pechtel Theory -- one of the few things it gets right -- is that working-class parents are forced to devote the lion's share of their time and energy just into making ends meet for their families; they cannot ALSO afford to be full-time mentors for their children, even if they are psychologically and intellectually prepared to do so (and believe me, a LARGE number of them are).

In the end, it boils down to the fact that "inner city" students in this position because their families lack the resources to give them the out-of-school attention they need in order to be successful. The solution to the problem is to provide that attention programmatically. That solution is NOT going to be cheap, but there's no disputing whether or not it would be effective. So the question, as always, is whether or not society is willing to spend they money required to institute those programs and provide the resources those families do not have at their disposal.

The better solution, of course, would be to eliminate poverty and/or under-employment and create an environment where any parent in America can comfortably afford to raise a family on a part-time salary. If we as a society are unable or unwilling to create those conditions, mentorship and tutoring programs are the only viable solution.

So do you want the problem solved or not?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They're called inner city schools. Without the parental support few kids are going to learn no matter how good the teachers.

Beware of rhetorical traps. Crazy Eddie distorted your comment (which was similar to my own) into a strawman which presumes that you are claiming that rigorous classes are not offered as much in black schools because "none of its students are prepared". Nothing you (or I ) said implies this. It is fully sufficient that merely fewer students in those schools are prepared compared to the "white" or integrated schools, thus there are more classrooms where too many students would be left behind and fail if rigorous expectations were made and enforced.

I have addressed this before. The maximum learning will be delivered when the class is aimed at the average student in the class.

Note that this is a strong argument for sorting students out by ability. (Beware of this being subverted for racist purposes, though!!)

It is a clear fact that more students in the black schools are less prepared. That is the whole problem that calls for integration is trying to fix. It is undeniable that this lesser preparation would force their current and future teachers to offer less rigorous courses to avoid leaving too many students behind or failing them. This means that the % of kids in these classes that are prepared, do not get the opportunity due to their classmates, and when they are moved to a school with better prepared students, they do get the opportunity and they learn more. Of course, some of the black kids that are moved are among those not prepared, so they don't see much benefit. That is why the data only shows aggregated improvements for kids who switch to more integrated schools and not equal improvements to all the kids who switched.

And it doesn't show the dragging down of the classes by adding the unprepared students. The more you sort students by ability the more total learning will be delivered.

The question is WHY are they less prepared and why have they learned less leading up to their current classes?
For some of them, it is because their prior classes were limited by their classmates lack of preparation or behavioral problems. IOW, their own traits related to ability and motivation are not at issue, only the classroom context they have been in which includes things like teachers and resources but also includes the context created by their classmates.
But that requires that some of those classmates have limitations not directly tied to the classroom context, but to their own more general traits and/or contextual factors outside the classroom. To explain the "gap" in question, they have to be factors correlated with being black in the modern USA, but that still leaves countless factors from biology (not necessarily genes but even in-utero stressors and nutrition) to early childhood language exposure, to cultural views about school, to more proximal environmental factors related to SES.

Exactly. Schools are a reflection of the students in them. These days a shit school means it's getting shit students. There might be some gems in the shit but so long as we deal with them in bulk we will never find them.

- - - Updated - - -

They're called inner city schools. Without the parental support few kids are going to learn no matter how good the teachers.

So none of the kids in inner city schools have "parental support?"
So none of the kids in inner city schools are capable of learning?

I never said none. Schools are a reflection of the average.

It's been proven to be useless at the grade school/high school transition.

Source please, because this looks like bullshit.

You guys hate Freakonomics, it slaughtered too many holy cows.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's hardly a "trap" it's just a matter of fairness. If the Downtown high school has 4,000 students and 200 of them would benefit from AP classes, you're doing a disservice to those students by failing to offer those classes. Still more importantly, tutoring programs including study habit training, time management training, motivational training and even simple occupational mentorship can dramatically improve student achievement in that same school; the number may go from 200 to 600, and then how do you justify eliminating advanced placement classes?

Downtown high school isn't going to have 200 AP students out of 4000. That's more like what you'll find in the decent schools.

You would be very lucky to have 20. But high school is 4 years and AP classes are normally senior year classes--thus you actually have only 5.

Are you going to set up separate classes for 5 students? The budget isn't going to like that sort of thing! Having one full section is hard enough in the decent schools.

 

[laughing dog]

Not surprisingly, Eddie, Athena, and Laughing dog ignore the clear empirical fact that more students in those schools are not well prepared for a rigorous course, even though the entire OP is based on data showing this.

What empirical data do you believe we have ignored? I haven't seen any data in this thread.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's hardly a "trap" it's just a matter of fairness. If the Downtown high school has 4,000 students and 200 of them would benefit from AP classes, you're doing a disservice to those students by failing to offer those classes. Still more importantly, tutoring programs including study habit training, time management training, motivational training and even simple occupational mentorship can dramatically improve student achievement in that same school; the number may go from 200 to 600, and then how do you justify eliminating advanced placement classes?

Downtown high school isn't going to have 200 AP students out of 4000. That's more like what you'll find in the decent schools.

Yes, because YOUR experience as an educator allows you to hold an informed opinion on this.

A good example would be Lane Tech over on the North Side, smack dab in the middle of a relatively low-income, racially diverse neighborhood. 17% of their students exceeded PSAE science standards in last year's testing. With a population of around 4100 students, that's 697 students. And Lane Tech isn't that great of a high school.

Oak Park High School, on the other hand, IS known for being a great high school. 28% of its students, or about 1600 kids, exceeded PSAE science standards last year. Compare with Proviso East, two and a half miles down the road, where 4% of its students live in homeless shelters; only 17% of its students even met PSAE standards; compare again with Proviso Math And science -- in the very same town -- where a full 10% of those students exceeded standards. There's Morton West, where only 20% of its students met standards, and then there's Morton West, then you drive down the street and over a set of train tracks and you get to Riverside Brookfield where 70% met and 20% exceeded. Drive out far enough and you get to the bizzare situation in LaGrange with its infamous (and much hated by educators and parents alike) three-tiered education program; 40% of students completely bombed the PSAEs and 30% of them exceeded it by a wide margin. And don't even get me started on Schaumburg...

What's basically happening is we have multiple populations of students who are living VERY close to each other, usually in the same neighborhoods, but are being segregated by ability level. The students who are being concentrated into poor schools CONTINUE to perform poorly while students directed into more advanced programs continue to improve. You thus have situations where students live ACROSS THE STREET from one another and are receiving a vastly different quality of education.

And what it comes down to is funding. It is no secret and has never been a secret that Proviso East High School is one of the worst funded public schools in Illinois. It is hardly the largest, it is far from the most under-performing. But it exists in a township that is reluctant to "throw money away" at an underperforming school and instead spent around $30 million dollars in economic support for a series of exclusive private schools. A few years ago, the locals raised a big stink about the public schools being short-changed, students using books that have been out of print since the Cold War ended, math classes where students had to share calculators and teachers who had to drive to Target and buy sidewalk chalk because the district couldn't afford to give them any. The government finally caved to these complaints... by creating Proviso Math and Science Academy and collecting the top students from East and West into that instead. And everyone who complained shut up for a few years... and East is still using textbooks from 1994.

You would be very lucky to have 20.

In a school with a couple of hundred students, sure. Even Englewood Tech -- notable for being one of the worst performing schools in America -- still managed to place a half dozen of its students into college prep programs as seniors.

But high school is 4 years and AP classes are normally senior year classes

I suppose that's why me and my sister both took AP classes from Freshman through Senior year.

But yeah, please continue, I'm sure you totally know what you're talking about.

I asked ron this, and I'll ask you too:
Why did black people go through all that trouble to desegregate schools in the 1960s?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Downtown high school isn't going to have 200 AP students out of 4000. That's more like what you'll find in the decent schools.

Yes, because YOUR experience as an educator allows you to hold an informed opinion on this.

A good example would be Lane Tech over on the North Side, smack dab in the middle of a relatively low-income, racially diverse neighborhood. 17% of their students exceeded PSAE science standards in last year's testing. With a population of around 4100 students, that's 697 students. And Lane Tech isn't that great of a high school.

Oak Park High School, on the other hand, IS known for being a great high school. 28% of its students, or about 1600 kids, exceeded PSAE science standards last year. Compare with Proviso East, two and a half miles down the road, where 4% of its students live in homeless shelters; only 17% of its students even met PSAE standards; compare again with Proviso Math And science -- in the very same town -- where a full 10% of those students exceeded standards. There's Morton West, where only 20% of its students met standards, and then there's Morton West, then you drive down the street and over a set of train tracks and you get to Riverside Brookfield where 70% met and 20% exceeded. Drive out far enough and you get to the bizzare situation in LaGrange with its infamous (and much hated by educators and parents alike) three-tiered education program; 40% of students completely bombed the PSAEs and 30% of them exceeded it by a wide margin. And don't even get me started on Schaumburg...

What's basically happening is we have multiple populations of students who are living VERY close to each other, usually in the same neighborhoods, but are being segregated by ability level. The students who are being concentrated into poor schools CONTINUE to perform poorly while students directed into more advanced programs continue to improve. You thus have situations where students live ACROSS THE STREET from one another and are receiving a vastly different quality of education.

And what it comes down to is funding. It is no secret and has never been a secret that Proviso East High School is one of the worst funded public schools in Illinois. It is hardly the largest, it is far from the most under-performing. But it exists in a township that is reluctant to "throw money away" at an underperforming school and instead spent around $30 million dollars in economic support for a series of exclusive private schools. A few years ago, the locals raised a big stink about the public schools being short-changed, students using books that have been out of print since the Cold War ended, math classes where students had to share calculators and teachers who had to drive to Target and buy sidewalk chalk because the district couldn't afford to give them any. The government finally caved to these complaints... by creating Proviso Math and Science Academy and collecting the top students from East and West into that instead. And everyone who complained shut up for a few years... and East is still using textbooks from 1994.

You would be very lucky to have 20.

In a school with a couple of hundred students, sure. Even Englewood Tech -- notable for being one of the worst performing schools in America -- still managed to place a half dozen of its students into college prep programs as seniors.

But high school is 4 years and AP classes are normally senior year classes

I suppose that's why me and my sister both took AP classes from Freshman through Senior year.

But yeah, please continue, I'm sure you totally know what you're talking about.

I asked ron this, and I'll ask you too:
Why did black people go through all that trouble to desegregate schools in the 1960s?

I think we have a difference of opinion on what an AP class is.

When I was in school AP classes allowed you to take a test at the end and if you scored high enough that counted as having passed the first semester college class in the subject matter. I think it also counted as transfer credits in the field in question.

These are obviously the top level class the high school offers in the subject matter and thus pretty much only available to seniors.

Are you confusing this with simply accelerated classes that can be offered at any level? And generally are if they have enough students who want it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

When I was in school AP classes allowed you to take a test at the end and if you scored high enough that counted as having passed the first semester college class in the subject matter. I think it also counted as transfer credits in the field in question.

They still do, but in better schools you also have to take an exam to get IN to that class and the curriculum actually includes college-level instruction. This is part of what Athena was alluding to in mentioning "more rigorous classes."

In my school those classes were available to a select group of students coming in from the Junior High students, but primarily because at the time both school districts used a three-tier education track with "accelerated" students at the lower level being fast-tracked into AP classes as freshmen. This system basically imploded when it became clear that the students in the lowest tier were falling father and father behind grade level as they progressed.

Are you confusing this with simply accelerated classes that can be offered at any level? And generally are if they have enough students who want it.

They ALWAYS have enough students who want it. And the overlap between "accelerated" and "advanced placement" classes is basically the fact that some students try to go for early graduation and wind up enrolling for college as Sophomores or Juniors.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Once again, the evidence is against you on this case. And that even ignoring your bizzarre assumption that a school exists -- or even COULD exist -- in which none of its students are prepared for a rigorous education.

They're called inner city schools. Without the parental support few kids are going to learn no matter how good the teachers.

- - - Updated - - -

If this were true moving students into a better school would help them. Emphasis on the if.

Are you saying that moving a student to a better school won't help them?

It's been proven to be useless at the grade school/high school transition.

Where has this been proven?

- - - Updated - - -

Not surprisingly, Eddie, Athena, and Laughing dog ignore the clear empirical fact that more students in those schools are not well prepared for a rigorous course, even though the entire OP is based on data showing this.

What empirical data do you believe we have ignored? I haven't seen any data in this thread.

And you won't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They still do, but in better schools you also have to take an exam to get IN to that class and the curriculum actually includes college-level instruction. This is part of what Athena was alluding to in mentioning "more rigorous classes."

In my school those classes were available to a select group of students coming in from the Junior High students, but primarily because at the time both school districts used a three-tier education track with "accelerated" students at the lower level being fast-tracked into AP classes as freshmen. This system basically imploded when it became clear that the students in the lowest tier were falling father and father behind grade level as they progressed.

Of course they would be falling behind. That's better than putting them in a class at grade level that they don't have the prerequisites for and thus will get almost nothing out of, though.

Are you confusing this with simply accelerated classes that can be offered at any level? And generally are if they have enough students who want it.

They ALWAYS have enough students who want it. And the overlap between "accelerated" and "advanced placement" classes is basically the fact that some students try to go for early graduation and wind up enrolling for college as Sophomores or Juniors.

Always? I took most of the AP classes offered in my high school (2,400 students, a good school)--none of which had full classes. That's a very different matter than the accelerated classes, some of which even had multiple sections available.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Of course they would be falling behind. That's better than putting them in a class at grade level that they don't have the prerequisites for and thus will get almost nothing out of, though.

No it isn't. Not even a little. That is the whole reason we SCRAPPED the three-track program and deemphasized remediation in favor of individualized educational goals. An effort is now made to identify specific areas of deficiency for those students and provide instruction to restore proficiency in those areas so they can move on. The group of students who ten years ago had fallen two and then three years behind grade level have managed to make or exceed grade level every year since.

As a result, the graduation rate at the district high school increased by 15% and PSAE results went from 88 to 97% over five years. ACT and SAT scores also increased. So yes, they are getting QUITE a lot out of it.

Always? I took most of the AP classes offered in my high school (2,400 students, a good school)--none of which had full classes. That's a very different matter than the accelerated classes, some of which even had multiple sections available.

Because "AP/accelerated classes are not filled" is totally the same thing as "You can't find any students who want to take those classes."

Apparently you're only concerned with the education system "dumbing down" the education of its students unless it does it for "inner city" types.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No it isn't. Not even a little. That is the whole reason we SCRAPPED the three-track program and deemphasized remediation in favor of individualized educational goals. An effort is now made to identify specific areas of deficiency for those students and provide instruction to restore proficiency in those areas so they can move on. The group of students who ten years ago had fallen two and then three years behind grade level have managed to make or exceed grade level every year since.

As a result, the graduation rate at the district high school increased by 15% and PSAE results went from 88 to 97% over five years. ACT and SAT scores also increased. So yes, they are getting QUITE a lot out of it.

Always? I took most of the AP classes offered in my high school (2,400 students, a good school)--none of which had full classes. That's a very different matter than the accelerated classes, some of which even had multiple sections available.

Because "AP/accelerated classes are not filled" is totally the same thing as "You can't find any students who want to take those classes."

Apparently you're only concerned with the education system "dumbing down" the education of its students unless it does it for "inner city" types.

I have a hard time believing this. 3 years behind and then catch up in a single year? That means they learned 4 years worth of material in one year. I think it much more likely there's something being gamed in the testing. Teachers cheating on the tests of poor students are quite common--you fire teachers because they drew a bad class and they're going to consider that extremely unfair. If they have to cheat to overcome that, so what? It's less unfair than what was done to them.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No it isn't. Not even a little. That is the whole reason we SCRAPPED the three-track program and deemphasized remediation in favor of individualized educational goals. An effort is now made to identify specific areas of deficiency for those students and provide instruction to restore proficiency in those areas so they can move on. The group of students who ten years ago had fallen two and then three years behind grade level have managed to make or exceed grade level every year since.

As a result, the graduation rate at the district high school increased by 15% and PSAE results went from 88 to 97% over five years. ACT and SAT scores also increased. So yes, they are getting QUITE a lot out of it.


Because "AP/accelerated classes are not filled" is totally the same thing as "You can't find any students who want to take those classes."

Apparently you're only concerned with the education system "dumbing down" the education of its students unless it does it for "inner city" types.

I have a hard time believing this.

That does not surprise me in the least.

3 years behind and then catch up in a single year?

No. We phased out academic tracking in 2004 to 2006 after it became clear that the bottom-tracked students were falling father and farther behind; in 1998 they were one grade behind on average, by 2001 they were two grades behind and by 2003 we had students entering 9th grade who had yet to master long division. The high school and elementary schools are different districts; when the problem was identified, the superintendent of the high school put together a massive coalition of parents, teachers, child psychologists and even pissed off students who felt (not at all unreasonably) that they were being short changed and the group of them basically frog-marched the superintendent into early retirement. Which in hindsight wasn't really fair, because the tracking program wasn't entirely his idea and the implementation was sloppy, but his unwillingness to actually DO anything about it was a large part of the problem.

Proficiency has improved dramatically since we stopped tracking, for three reasons
1) Students lacking proficiency are encouraged (if not required) to seek additional help in the form of tutoring, summer school and after school programs.
2) Students who are excelling in classes are no longer required to enroll in gifted/accelerated classes and can still take the regular classes if they choose; a large number of students choose to do this because of extra-curricular commitments (they don't want to deal with the extra pressure and workload of accelerated classes they are otherwise smart enough to take) or simply to pad their GPAs without having to work too hard.
3) Students who are struggling in some subjects can still get into accelerated classes in areas where they are strongest; if your writing scores are unusually low, that shouldn't prevent you from taking an AP math class.

I think it much more likely there's something being gamed in the testing.

That or you suck at reading comprehension.

 

[ronburgundy]

Downtown high school isn't going to have 200 AP students out of 4000. That's more like what you'll find in the decent schools.

Yes, because YOUR experience as an educator allows you to hold an informed opinion on this.

A good example would be Lane Tech over on the North Side, smack daItb in the middle of a relatively low-income, racially diverse neighborhood. 17% of their students exceeded PSAE science standards in last year's testing. With a population of around 4100 students, that's 697 students. And Lane Tech isn't that great of a high school.

????
Lane Tech on Chicago's northside is by far among the top high schools in the State of Illinois. Only about 5 schools do better on the ISAT. It is a highly selective school that rejects 90% of applicants and nearly all students with low test scores or any behavioral problems on their record.
They not only refuse to admit students with low grades and standardized test scores, but they also require high scores on their own admissions exam.
Here is a direct quote from their webpage:

[P]"Lane Tech College Prep High School is a selective admissions school whose student body is chosen through a formula, which incorporates standardized test scores, academic grades, and the results of the entrance exam. Each year approximately 1,000 freshmen are chosen from more than 10,000 applicants. Students are encouraged to work with their elementary school counselor throughout the application process."[/P]

The racial diversity of the neighborhood is irrelevant since they do not accept the vast majority of students who live in the neighborhood. Because they use standards that reflect preparedness and competence on which black students do worse, their ethnic make-up is far less "diverse" than their district overall. 32% white and only 8.5% black, compared to the district numbers of 9% white and 40% black.

Lane Tech is a College Prep and is able to offer more rigorous courses that are near college level difficulty, precisely because it only selects students capable of succeeding in such courses.

Oak Park versus nearby schools is an invalid comparison because mostly white and wealthy Oak Park is outside of Chicago and has its own district. Your assertions of much greater spending in "white" schools is baseless and empirically false. Actual data from Chicago public schools shows that the per pupil "Instructional spending" (meaning teachers, books, computers, and other educational resources) is highest at predominantly black schools and lowest at "Integrated" schools such as Lane Tech.

[P]ELEMENTARY ($5,336 avg.)

Predominantly Hispanic $4,957

Predominantly black$ $5,556

Integrated (15-70% white) $5,271

HIGH SCHOOL ($6,980 avg.)

Predominantly Hispanic $7,041

Predominantly black $7,712

Integrated (15-70% white) $6,320

Source: Chicago Public Schools

Chicago Tribune[/P]


And Lane Tech achieves its stellar academic performance of its graduates, despite being among the lower funded schools, below the avg of Integrated schools.

From a report on CPS funding in the Chicago Tribune:
[P]"For example, per-pupil spending at the seven selective-enrollment high schools varies from a low of $4,953 per student at Lane Tech, an integrated high school on the North Side, to a high of $8,177 at King, a predominantly black high school on the South Side."[/P]

Also, the per pupil spending in Chicago schools is more than 15% higher than spending in schools in the rest of the much more "white" state of Illinois.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes, because YOUR experience as an educator allows you to hold an informed opinion on this.

A good example would be Lane Tech over on the North Side, smack daItb in the middle of a relatively low-income, racially diverse neighborhood. 17% of their students exceeded PSAE science standards in last year's testing. With a population of around 4100 students, that's 697 students. And Lane Tech isn't that great of a high school.

????
Lane Tech on Chicago's northside is by far among the top high schools in the State of Illinois.

It's one of the better schools in the City of Chicago, yes, but their reputation -- and end results -- are not quite up to par with their marketing materials.

At least, not anymore. Last few months I'm hearing things are turning around, though.

Only about 5 schools do better on the ISAT.

While around 30% do better on the PSAE. And their rejection rate isn't at 90% and hasn't been for years; practically speaking, it's closer to 40%.

Oak Park versus nearby schools is an invalid comparison because mostly white and wealthy Oak Park is outside of Chicago and has its own district. Your assertions of much greater spending in "white" schools is baseless and empirically false.

Actually it was an assertion that greater spending is diverted to more successful school districts and said funding is withheld from struggling districts often on a punitive (and thus self-defeating) basis. This is exactly what separates the more successful suburban schools -- and even successful Chicago area schools -- from the failing ones: at some point in the past, decisions were made to defund certain schools and maintain or increase funding to others. That's an easier mistake to make in a town with several different high schools, multiple private schools, charter schools and a busing program, and especially in the inner city, the schools are only as successful as the local government wants them to be.

Which leads us to your final canard:

And Lane Tech achieves its stellar academic performance of its graduates, despite being among the lower funded schools, below the avg of Integrated schools.

Are you actually now pushing the position that Lane Tech -- or ANY of the schools I listed -- are "segregated" schools? Lane Tech and Oak Park are far more racially diverse schools than, say, King or Proviso (in fact, their administrators have been known to point this out themselves as a point of pride). And despite their more efficient spending patterns, BOTH of them spend more of their resources on student support services than most of the public schools in Chicago do (much of which is spent on facilities management; I'm told Roberto Clemente High School spends more money on its students than any other school in Illinois, even if 60% of that spending is on security systems).

I asked this question before and you never did answer:
Why did black people push for integration in the 50s?

 

[SimpleDon]

Yes, because YOUR experience as an educator allows you to hold an informed opinion on this.

A good example would be Lane Tech over on the North Side, smack daItb in the middle of a relatively low-income, racially diverse neighborhood. 17% of their students exceeded PSAE science standards in last year's testing. With a population of around 4100 students, that's 697 students. And Lane Tech isn't that great of a high school.

????
Lane Tech on Chicago's northside is by far among the top high schools in the State of Illinois. Only about 5 schools do better on the ISAT. It is a highly selective school that rejects 90% of applicants and nearly all students with low test scores or any behavioral problems on their record.
They not only refuse to admit students with low grades and standardized test scores, but they also require high scores on their own admissions exam.
Here is a direct quote from their webpage:

[P]"Lane Tech College Prep High School is a selective admissions school whose student body is chosen through a formula, which incorporates standardized test scores, academic grades, and the results of the entrance exam. Each year approximately 1,000 freshmen are chosen from more than 10,000 applicants. Students are encouraged to work with their elementary school counselor throughout the application process."[/P]

The racial diversity of the neighborhood is irrelevant since they do not accept the vast majority of students who live in the neighborhood. Because they use standards that reflect preparedness and competence on which black students do worse, their ethnic make-up is far less "diverse" than their district overall. 32% white and only 8.5% black, compared to the district numbers of 9% white and 40% black.

Lane Tech is a College Prep and is able to offer more rigorous courses that are near college level difficulty, precisely because it only selects students capable of succeeding in such courses.

Oak Park versus nearby schools is an invalid comparison because mostly white and wealthy Oak Park is outside of Chicago and has its own district. Your assertions of much greater spending in "white" schools is baseless and empirically false. Actual data from Chicago public schools shows that the per pupil "Instructional spending" (meaning teachers, books, computers, and other educational resources) is highest at predominantly black schools and lowest at "Integrated" schools such as Lane Tech.

[P]ELEMENTARY ($5,336 avg.)

Predominantly Hispanic $4,957

Predominantly black$ $5,556

Integrated (15-70% white) $5,271

HIGH SCHOOL ($6,980 avg.)

Predominantly Hispanic $7,041

Predominantly black $7,712

Integrated (15-70% white) $6,320

Source: Chicago Public Schools

Chicago Tribune[/P]


And Lane Tech achieves its stellar academic performance of its graduates, despite being among the lower funded schools, below the avg of Integrated schools.

From a report on CPS funding in the Chicago Tribune:
[P]"For example, per-pupil spending at the seven selective-enrollment high schools varies from a low of $4,953 per student at Lane Tech, an integrated high school on the North Side, to a high of $8,177 at King, a predominantly black high school on the South Side."[/P]

Also, the per pupil spending in Chicago schools is more than 15% higher than spending in schools in the rest of the much more "white" state of Illinois.

I would expect these to be the case, both that more money has to be spent educating underachievers and that large school districts like big city ones are able to put more money directly into the classroom.

The secret that no one is apparently allowed to talk about is that there are more than 17,000 school districts in the US, all with pretty much the same problems and coming up with pretty much the same solutions. This stunning amount of duplication of effort results in the US spending a average of 45% of their tax dollars collected for schools on administration. This is a dramatic waste of money justified as required to maintain local control of the schools.

Most countries centralize their school administration and their school tax collection and dispersing, and as a result spend only about 20% of their money on administration.

Larger school districts will be able to save more money on administration, to allow them to spend more money directly in the classroom.

The other reason for our difficulties in the schools is that they are being used as firebreaks for most of society's problems, problems that we are not allowed to solve politically in the most obvious and effective ways. The schools have be police, social workers, day care, they have to feed the hungry all of the while they are having to try to solve our problems with racism, our inability to control guns, drugs and immigration and our inability to deal with sex and sexuality as adults.

An obvious and glaring example is our inability to eliminate poverty. This is the richest country in the world. All that we have to do to eliminate poverty is to pay the lowest paid workers in our economy higher wages. It is a simple economic problem, easily solved.

There is no mystery even how to do it. We have been in a thirty five year long experiment of how to do just the opposite, to suppress the wages of the poor and the middle class to increase the incomes of the very richest in our society while increasing the pain and the suffering of being poor. All that we have to do is to reverse what we have been doing for the last thirty five years and to suppress the incomes of already rich and to increase the incomes of the working poor.

Eliminating poverty would in turn eliminate about 60% of the problems in the schools. It would help our crime problems and our drug problems, especially if we started treating drug addiction as an illness and not as a moral failure that deserves punishment.

The inability to deal with these problems politically out of the schools stems from one and only one source, that in the last forty years or so, we have been listening to conservatives as if they were capable of making any sense at all, instead of doing what we have always done in the more successful periods of our governance, that is to ignore them because they will always be systemically wrong about the problems that we are having in society at any point in time.

It always falls to me to state these oblivious truths about these things that we discuss here daily.