<p>“But by my suggestion, if Princeton Junction is spending (as Scarsdale does) $22k per student (not counting voluntary contributions), and has been for several generations), to catch up, Newark would need $44k per (plus equivalent doubling in voluntary donations), or roughly triple what they currently get. Not forever. Just three generations.”</p>
<p>While it is undeniable that having more money to spend “should” yield better results, it does not seem to be a solution that is realistic in a era of increased accountability. Short of changing our way of funding K-12 education, I doubt that you could squeeze the families which are still able to contribute any further. With values of homes skyrocketing in many areas of the country, it is not unusual for lower middle class families to face property taxes of $15,000 per year, with the largest portion going to the school districts. The only certainty families face is that the taxes will go up year after year, even when real estate values are correcting downwards. What is rarely seen is an improvement in the finances of the corresponding school districts, and more money being directed at the educators and students. It is, however, not very hard for the cynics to point out that the administration has never skipped its “ever so important” annual retreat to Hawaii, where superintendents probably plot their next salary increases’ stratagems. It is no wonder that families which have a choice bolt for the suburbs at the first chance! </p>
<p>I realize that most people consider the policy of “starving the problem” as an aberration. However, while people join in loud lamentations for more money, others try to do better with LESS. If the original story represents a sad and hopeless tale of human ineptitude to address the basic needs of our society, there are other stories that give a glimmer of hope:</p>
<p>Perhaps, one solution would be to require future housing developments to provide a variety of home values, by including multi-family, small homes and rental apartments, instead of the current practice of having homes from the low $400,000s in one place and condos in another, leaving the poor and lower middle income families to take the scraps.</p>
<p>It is also important to realize that kids who have no parks or libraries nearby are handicapped in their education. We also need to put an effort into educating parents of poor children. When I do home visits or poll my students I notice more televisions than bookshelves or books in too many homes.</p>
<p>I also agree that more money should be spent in these underperforming districts. However, many of the problems in these districts exist outside of the school walls. Many of these kids have no role models for educational success as their parents (if there are two involved) have a GED or less in many cases. They lack educational opportunities outside of school or prior to school beginning in kindergarten. I’ve taught a lot of Headstart kids and it is in no way gives equal opportunities of middle class kids. It’s a start, but doesn’t parallel kids who have travel experiences and parents reading to them each night and playing educational games. Kids need to know that education is a priority. Similarly the parents need to realize that school is not day care. This is not the attitude of all parents in lower class districts, but it reflects the attitude of many I’ve dealt with.</p>
<p>Mini, your little tiff w/Garland ignores the fact that due to Federal and State mandates, a lot of districts which have increase funding substantially don’t actually see any of the $ go to instruction of mainstream, non-disabled kids.</p>
<p>In my district, if your kid has asthma-- sue the town to get a private bus service to pick your kid up at the door (no standing on a street corner.) Your kid having trouble learning to read and you don’t want the “stigma” of a pull-out program? Sue the town. Have the child classified as LD and then you get lots of goodies.</p>
<p>Am I cynical? You bet. The kids who really need the intervention don’t often get it; the mainstream kids don’t see a nickel of the extra funds, and the number of para-professionals running around the schools has skyrocketed since everyone gets to label their kid with some disability or another which generates all those contracts for all those members of the union.</p>
<p>Our town spends a fortune on special Ed. No evidence whatsoever that any of it is working, but more jobs for everyone. Great article in the WSJ a year ago examining the movement for “smaller class sizes”. No evidence that it benefits anyone except the teachers unions… who cynically chose more teachers (and more dues) over higher pay for fewer teachers, which may actually have improved instruction by keeping teacher standards high instead of the deplorable state they’re in now.</p>
<p>In my state, Ed majors have the lowest SAT scores of any college kids in the State U. system. They’re so busy learning pedagogy to get certified that they don’t have time to read a work of literature to get their degree.</p>
<p>I do not think money is the answer. I think the special interest groups have taken hold of K-12 education and won’t let it go.</p>
<p>Here again Minnesota is a useful “natural experiment.” The Metropolitan Council, an overarching governmental body with power to control development patterns in the Twin Cities and suburbs, does quite a lot to ensure that there is affordable housing in all municipalities surrounding the urban cores. My own neighborhood is a kind of working-class enclave in a very rich suburb, and I am happy to say that it is fully “integrated” as to ethnic composition.</p>
<p>As another New Jersey resident I second everything Garland said.</p>
<p>Surely, it is not simply a funding problem. </p>
<p>We moved from Maryland to NJ 3 years ago and of course our property taxes quintupled (which fund the schools) from $2000 to 10,000 a year, and yet our NJ school district is no better than the last one we were in at1/5 the cost (much of that tax money, of course, goes to fund the so-called Abbott school districts [inner-city] which are funded as Garland suggested).</p>
<p>I can also speak to what is happening in NJ from a semi-insider perspective. My fiance teaches in one of the Abbott schools that Garland talks about. The money is definitely getting to the education of the students. The teacher salary is comparable to the richest districts in the state. She teaches the “gifted and talented” class and has only 18 students in her class. However, her class is by far the biggest with all of the other classes having about 12 students (some special needs classes with 6). Yet, with good teacher pay and very low class size, the school is still failing.</p>
<p>Money is definitely not the answer. The problem is more societal (two parent households are the extreme minority, some students don’t have either parent present and they are living with the grandmother.) The kids are bright and willing to learn but they enter the school system with two strikes against them and unfortunately, pouring money on the educational part of the equation does not take those strikes away.</p>
<p>my daughters school is inner city- with 30 student class size. Yes it is a magnet for the highly capable students in the city- however many students like my daughter are not from that program.
They have the highest graduation rate in the city. 90%.
I would attribute that to higher expectations from the students, the parents and the staff, than what they would experience elsewhere.
The teachers work hard- they are not paid any more than teachers in other schools, but they are more available in my experience to students and parents. Communication is a priority and while they still have a ways to go, it has made such a big difference to students like my daughter who need to have an adult to help her stay on top of things.
Its not a perfect school- not by a long shot. I am working my butt off to insure that expectations remain high for all students, not just the students from teh gifted program.
Opportunities are many however. The high level of involvment that the parents of gifted have had since K, benefits all students, as they work to sponsor teacher grants, clubs, programs and even the teachers themselves ( every year- it seems the PTA ends up paying for another posistion or most of a teaching position so that more classes can be offered- not a great precedent- but they are used to getting things done)
My next focus is the state legislature. I feel graduation requirements are abysmal. Of course what they don’t require, they don’t have to fund. Only 2 years of math and science are required for graduation, and level is not specified. My daughter had very poor science and math teaching till high school, especially math. Despite having outside tutors and special help at school- she was at least a year behind when she entered high school. Now just one year later, she is only one semester behind. This is not because she is working any harder. She has always gotten As in science and math. But I think the way they are teaching math is an improvement over what the district usually uses, and makes more sense to her.
( the disconnect between grades and level is because her previous school had several different levels of math and while she was always in the lower one, she did the work that was required- now however she is moving up to grade level expectations and beyond)</p>
<p>The rich know how much it takes to educate a child who already has all the advantages of birth, rich home life, good community, educated parents. $32k a year, give or take. It’s pretty consistent, whether you look to the ritzy private schools, or the Marin County publics, when you add in the annual value of donations and fundraisers.</p>
<p>So, if that’s what it takes to adequately educate a child from a highly advantaged background, figure a little more for one from a less than adequate one. </p>
<p>Money is not a sufficient answer, only (and over a period of generations) a necessary one. Ask any rich folks whether they are prepared to send their kids to a school for 12 years where spending is at $9-12k (give or take, at this level it doesn’t matter), and they’ll laugh in your face.</p>
<p>Mini, sorry to stop your laughing, but my BIL teaches at a school where the tuition is far less than $10K per person - probably more like $5-7K. This is the same school system that I went to as a kid and where my nieces and nephews currently go or have recently graduated from. Some of my classmates had fathers who were engineers and doctors and some were garbage men and meter readers. Yet the vast majority of the graduates go on to college and the test scores are among the highest in the state. Money had nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>Also, my fiance’s daughter teaches at a school where one of the most famous rock musicians in the world (who’s name I will not mention) sends his kids. The tuition is approx. $18K. That is a lot, but nowhere near the $32K that you claim. Interestingly, the teachers at this school make far less than the teachers in the inner city school where my fiance teaches.</p>
<p>personally I would like to see more emphasis on prenatal and prepregnancy nutrition and health care. Many babies who are born at risk- could have been helped beforehand by better parental nutrition and birthcontrol. So many babies weren’t even planned or concieved by parents ready to care for them.
If your mother can’t even give up smoking cigarettes before you are born, let alone other substances she may be using, and your father is using subtances or lacks good nutrition, you are at a disadvantage before you are even concieved.
Some of these mothers are 15, 16 , 17 years old.This is not about anything than making sure “every child is a wanted child”, and by “want” I don’t mean some 15 year old who thinks that she can get her boyfriend to stay with her if she gets pregnant, or that it would be fun to have someone hang onto her leg while she is trying to take a shower.
having a child is at least a 20 year responsibity and I think we should educate our young people more about what that involves
( around here, both garbage men and meter readers are paid pretty damn good- aren’t they city workers?- they probably have union benefits unlike someone who say owns her own bookshop and is trying to get enough sleep but keep from going under)
dying to know who the rock musican is
all the ones I can think of offhand are practically old enough to have grandchildren at least ( well eddie vedders daughter is barely walking- but I have a feeling he will send her to public school)</p>
<p>Okay, Mini, let me look around my community to find who’s spending that extra 32K on their kids. Well, there’s the val of my D’s class–his dad is a carpenter, his mom a church secretary. Neither went to college. Their very hardworking and emphasized education with their kids. But they didn’t have any of those things to offer him, except a home life rich in support. My S’s best friend, again, neither parent went to college, he grew up in a two-family house, they rented the downstairs for extra cash. Again, no tuition spent, no summer programs, no fancy suburb. Their D graduated with an ed. degree from Loyola last year; son is in his second yr at RIT. I could list scores of kids from our neighborhood with similar backgrounds. We just don’t have kind of life here that you listed.</p>
<p>You keep on presenting the rich as the only successful families–they don’t represent most of the country (as your statistics always point out), so to say that a student needs an expensive neighborhood, private tuition, summer programs, etc to thrive in school is simply ridiculous. What they need is good enough schools, safety–in school and outside it, good health care ( the leading reason for school absence is asthma and it’s much worse in the cities), positive parental attention, nutritious food, discipline, and a lot of books read to them.</p>
You’re describing a segment of the population that needs to live under adult supervision. I don’t know how else to put it. There are some that cannot and will not take care of themselves, their daily existence consists of bodily functions, and when that lifestyle produces children, they’re no better prepared to care for them than they were to take care of themselves. And the cycle continues. It is certainly a class issue, and one that crosses all racial lines. I don’t know what the answer is. A barracks style living situation with someone telling them what they can and can’t do would be a start. Growing up in a large family, that was kind of what we had.</p>
<p>well the substance stuff isn’t limited to low income. But when I am advising kids in my daughters high school who are 16- their mom is 36 and they have a 20 year old brother who is the only one working, I feel like I am swimming upstream, I can’t imagine what the kids feel.</p>
<p>Some of them do live in a big family situation, a grandma, a mom and kids, all who might have babies of their own. I think higher expectations would help, programs that can pair them up with adults outside their smaller communities who can show them another way to live. Some of these kids are really smart- but they have a hard time seeing what else is out there.</p>
As one of the dastardly rich folk, I wouldn’t laugh in your face (I’m too well bred). But I would also say that I’ve never used spending-per-pupil as a benchmark for evaluating education. My Pennsylvania town is one of the wealthiest communities in the country, with a “top 100” school district, “highest SATs in the state,” all the other goodies. But we opted out and chose to begin paying college tuition rates for private school as soon as elementary was over. And 45% of the kids in our famous town go to private school as well. Because our highly-touted public system is a bloated, inefficient mess. Of course you can get a good education in public school here. But don’t talk to me about how much spending per pupil means in this debate. I spend more to send my kids to a non-sectarian private school that spends less per pupil than the public schools, despite paying exorbitant public school taxes. The teachers at our private school have Master’s degrees and even PhDs in their areas of academic expertise. The teachers in our public schools have Masters degrees in “education”–that’s what the teacher’s union wants. Yet our private school teachers make half what the public school teachers make. I’m thankful I can afford to do this, but I feel very badly for those who can’t, and I think the amount of money being wasted in our government schools is a disgrace.</p>
<p>I’ve long believed in the abolition of colleges of education. Knowing how to teach has little to do with what people sit through in “education” classes, and the best teachers aren’t necessarily the highest paid teachers. I believe teachers’ unions have harmed education in this country as much as colleges of education have done, not because teachers don’t deserve a decent living but because the organizations focus on all the wrong things. Your experience is one of the results of all that. So has our family’s been. Local public education here would be a joke if it didn’t make me want to cry.</p>
<p>“where spending is at $9-12k (give or take, at this level it doesn’t matter), and they’ll laugh in your face”</p>
<p>It’s less than 9000/yr at my kid’s school system, Mini, as I already told you. And I made the choice to keep them here because I think concerned parents are part of the school system, and are hurting it by opting out of it–private school or otherwise. They do the best they can here with little money, and I’m glad we’ve stayed with it. I bet your public school system would’ve benefited from your being part if it, too.</p>
( well eddie vedders daughter is barely walking- but I have a feeling he will send her to public school)</p>