I wonder if the same hypothesis holds true for homeschooled students. Is there a significant difference in the outcomes of poor homeschooled students vs public school students in the same income bracket zoned for the same schools?
@menloparkmom- I completely understand what @marvin100 is talking about. I live in the same school district as Marjorie Stoneman Douglas. I sent my kids to private school.
Back in 2013 the following article was posted:
Now in 2018:
“But Broward County took its approach even further with lesser-known efforts. It actively re-enrolled in mainstream schools the students who couldn’t avoid arrest even under the lenient new approach, because their offenses – including violent misdemeanors and felonies – were so serious.”
The articles are pretty specific in that the initial plan was aimed at keeping black kids out of prison. Personally, I want criminals in prison, not in my child’s school. Race doesn’t play into it for me.
I did not want my kids in the public schools here. It wasn’t solely based on college admissions. The culture in the public schools here is toxic. BTW-the Parkland shooter was supposed to be in the Promise program.
For those of you who live in nice, suburban areas and think these things can’t happen in your area, please note that Parkland, FL is a BEAUTIFUL, wealthy, suburban community.
@juillet I thought your above comment was very intelligent and well thought out. I was wondering at what level do you think the effects of more family money do not become important. In other words is the student who comes from a family that makes 500k per year any more likely to do any better than the student that comes from a family that makes 300k per year.
Without seeing the actual study, I doubt it tells us much. Collinearity is a major problem in trying to establish causality using normal regression techniques. A more robust technique would be to use matched pairs.
Thanks, @2more2go, I am too! the article itself doesn’t describe the private schools attended by the children in the study. But the SECCYD cohort is designed to be representative of the U.S. population on most sociodemographic characteristics, and the average income of families in the cohort was $37,781. I’m guessing, then, that the private schools in the cohort also reflected the full spectrum of private schools - so likely fewer very expensive, elite private schools and more sort of run-of-the-mill private schools (the average tuition at K-12 private schools is about $10,740 per year, according to the Council for American Private Education, and nearly 80% of private school students attend a Catholic, Christian or other religious private school.
Thanks @collegedad13! Hmm, that’s a good question! I don’t know. I’m not sure about the exact number from a scientific standpoint, but I don’t think there’d be a significant difference between those two income brackets. Even in the majority of coastal urban metropolitan areas (and certainly in most other places in the country), a $300K salary can buy you a home in the best neighborhoods with the best-funded schools. Or if you chose to live in a neighborhood that’s funkier/artsier/more interesting, but had worse schools, at that income level you could probably also afford to send your kids to a good private school with classmates and funding and family income that matches the kids in the wealthy suburban areas.
My guess would be that the threshold is the level at which earning more money stops significantly changing the average socioneconomic background of the students in your children’s classrooms. My guess is that on average in the United States, that’s probably somewhere around $100-135K, give or take. In my metro area - Seattle, a metro where incomes are inflated by the tech industry - I’m guessing it’s probably closer to $150-180K. At around that income threshold, you can afford to buy into some of the richest areas in the metro. Around here, if you make $300K, you’re still probably living in the same school districts and sending your kids to the same schools with people who make $150K, regardless of whether they go to private or public school (especially at the middle and high school levels).
They actually did do this as a robustness check. They used propensity score matching models and used a couple different ways to check the quality of the matches. Their results confirmed their conclusions from the earlier non-matched analyses. You can read about the analysis on p. 429 if you’d like!
Good question, @roethlisburger ; good answer, @juillet !
The info in the OP article is old news.
What do you mean, @jym626 ? It’s a new study afaik, a very long time in the making (longitudinal, after all).
Lynn O’Shaughnessey has been talking about this for quite some time. Check her website (the college solution) for the references- I don’t have them in front of me at the moment.
http://www.americaspromise.org/news/pbs-newshour-biggest-predictor-college-success-family-income
https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-success-income-inequality-2014-1
lots more articles from around 2014 but my ipad is misbehaving at the moment…
Yeah, @jym626 - this new study separates family wealth out from other factors in a way that I’ve never seen done before (and certainly wasn’t in those articles you linked–both of those articles leave room for assuming that wealth leads to academic success because wealthy folks can send their kids to private schools, whereas this new study shows that’s not the case.)
@marvin100 your quote in the OP relates success to family income- just like all these other studies. That’s my point.
Right, but fortunately the study has a lot more detail than my pull quote 
But your thread title doesn’t
Right–that’s how journalism works. They make headlines. My thread title is just the headline, and you’ll notice I included a link so you can find out more, and then the great @juillet provided a non-paywalled link to the full study. Moral of the story: If you think a new study isn’t new, you should probably see what it actually says before poo-pooing it.
I did- its not new news. Before you poo poo references from people who’ve been reading this stuff for a long time, talk a look at the history and past studies. All I said is that its old news, because it is. Just because its another or a new study doesn’t mean that its new news. If you feel your post or the article was poo pooed, well… can’t do much about that.
And, this isn’t “journalism”. This is a bb forum. The thread title should describe the thread. Don’t make it more than it is. When people use clickbait thread titles and then talk about something else, that’s annoying. Surely you didn’t mean to do that.
Of course this isn’t journalism–the article I linked to is journalism, as I said. I mean, I’m not sure why you’re doubling down on this rather than reading the study (which will make eminently clear that the study is new and has new conclusions!), tbh.
And I am not sure why you are taking issue with the fact that I am not disagreeing with the study (as many others have in this thread). I am just saying, as juillet did earlier, that the correlation between wealth and academic success has been shown in many studies over many years. This study supports that, saying that attendance in private school per se is not a predictor of success. Ok. So once again, the best predictor is family finances. This is what I am saying is not new. Not sure why you are having trouble with this.
Except we’ve been through that. The headline and pull quote might suggest you’re right, but you’re not, as I made clear earlier when you offered links to things that don’t show what this study shows:
You are unusually protective of your thread, @marvin100 , and a need to quote yourself. That’s kinda funny. For whatever reason you want to argue with what the result boils down to. The bottom line is that the primary variable is $. Perhaps you’d prefer to go back to arguing with the posters who are feeling that anecdotal evidence is more valuable in this discussion. All I said, and I won’t quote myself in a quote box, is that this is not news. Sorry you are having such trouble with that. It wasn’t an argument. It was an observation. But you seem to want to put your boxing gloves on.
Glad the investigators did a longitudinal study supporting known past results.
Perhaps you would prefer to shadow box.