"The school funding formula is SUPPOSED TO "fully compensate" for demographics. If it does not, it is simply one more failure of government to solve the problem that some kids are being systematically deprived of the education "guaranteed" them. I would like to think that, if you started every kid out with the expectation he could learn, and properly nurtured that desire to learn we all have, it wouldn't cost more to educate a poor kid than a rich one. Other than the free lunch.So what are your thoughts on this?
Of course, I'm willing to see the high differential of the current formula stay in place, so long as results are brought up to somewhere near equal. I mean, I can understand poor results if I'm getting by cheap, or paying more to get better results, but spending more and getting less just does not compute, not to mention the tragic loss of human potential. J. Ewing"
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Compensating for Demographics
J recently left this comment back at G2A Blame vs Contributions and I thought it was worth more attention than it would get back there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well, since folks are being shy... I'll start...
"SUPPOSED to fully compensate for demographics"... I must have missed the memo. And if this is true, why are all these folks lobbying for more early ed and K-12 funding?
And yes I am certain you will say they want more funding to line their pockets and feed the bureaucratic monster. Yet the Public schools are funded per student far below the high end Privates that have the results we desire. And those Privates have few or no Unlucky or Special Ed kids.
"if you started every kid out" That is why we need more Early Ed funding, waiting until age 5 is too late. Unproductive belief systems are entrenched and the kids are far behind their lucky peers. It is like trying to win a horse race carrying an extra 50 Lbs on the saddle. And it just gets heavier over time.
"wouldn't cost more to educate a poor kid than a rich one" It has nothing to do with poor and rich. It has to do with the belief systems, knowledge, role modeling, support, etc that happens in the different demographics. Of course it will cost more to teach a student that is not academically supported at home. Especially if certain beliefs have to be undone before one can even start. Trying to fix these negative systems in 6.5 hrs that are being reinforced the rest of the day would be really hard.
If we really want to help these kids, I think it will require a Harlem Children's zone pipeline methodology. This means getting the kids positive role models and starting their education as soon as possible. And preferably encouraging the Parents to learn and improve.
Of course, the Conservatives are too worried that the bureaucrats will try to brainwash the kids. And the parents are often too far into entitlement to be open to a different belief system, or they will be threatened by it.
It is definitely a mess.
Well said John! Maybe tomorrow I will think of something to add to your comment.
Let's try it another way, starting with "correlation is not causation." That means if A and B seem related, A causes B. Or B causes A. Or some other factor C affects A and B together. Or it's happenstance - no real correlation.
Does how you pay for lunch affect your child's scholarship? Of course not, but funding formulas blindly assume it does. No, no you say, poverty is the factor C that affects them both. But that doesn't really wash either, as school is essentially free for the poor.
For example, why don't we use the more direct factors, like mobility? When students move, time and resources must be indeed be spent to assess and tailor the transaction, especially mid-term.
Can they speak English is another more direct indicator, requiring more time and money. This is in the formulas, but not enough it seems to me. I think everything else should wait until their English is sufficient for regular instruction. Maybe a "magnet" school that teaches English in various ways.
Today's practice of just hiding behind "poverty" when you really mean black or mom isn't married obviously isn't getting us anywhere.
Laurie,
Thanks.
Speed,
I can understand your point that being a single parent is a cause of being poor. But this Black being a cause of being poor seems a stretch, though I do agree they appear to be correlated.
Here are a bunch of advantages that the Lucky "not poor" kids have that do wonders for their academic success. And make them less expensive to teach. I am thinking each of them is definitely causal in nature.
G2A Poor Kids Stupid or Unlucky
If we could find measureable factors to define a Deadbeat, Untrained or Irresponsible parent, that would be cool. High mobility may be a good start. Maybe pre-K assessment scores as a measure of how well the child is prepared for kindergarten. Probably not very good since some kids mature differently.
We tried to figure out why people were poor awhile back. These reasons definitely do not seem to lend themselves to making an excellent and responsible parent. G2A American Poverty
That said, I do know some Free and Reduced Lunch folks that are incredible parents. Usually they were broke because they chose to have a larger family. Or as you said, it is a single parent household.
Let me get this straight. You want to identify the non--demographic factors, such as a loving and wealthy two-parent family, that cause a child to be academically successful despite incompetent teachers, a stifling curriculum and drug dealers in the hallways. You would then give THOSE schools more money, because /some/ of the children /required/ to attend there lacked those advantages. Why?
We've already proven that taking demographics into account, and giving more money to the schools with the "poor" demographics, is a failure. It can be proven statistically as well as by direct observation that the more a school district [receives and] spends the worse the academic performance.
Here is a unique idea: let us allow every child into an educational environment with competent educators and a challenging curriculum that takes children from where they are to where they need to be. If Mississippi can do it, so can we.
J. Ewing
"We've already proven that taking demographics into account, and giving more money to the schools with the "poor" demographics, is a failure. It can be proven statistically as well as by direct observation that the more a school district [receives and] spends the worse the academic performance."
I agree whole heartedly that there is correlation between more money and worse results in Public Schools. However this certainly does not prove causation though.
There are 2 possibilities that are certainly possible:
- Spending more money drives worse results. Which makes NO sense.
- The challenges within these student / parent bodies are extremely hard to overcome, if not impossible. Therefore we are not spending enough to get the results we desire or we are wasting money with little hope of success.
I am not saying there isn't room for improvement in inner city schools, especially with regard to Union/Personnel issues. But to deny the reality that they have a really tough crowd to teach is definitely not correct. We're back to the HCZ model again, and that won't come cheap.
As for Mississippi, I researched them last time and I was not impressed.
If I may, let me clarify my "hiding behind poverty" point. I'm personally not saying being black, poor, etc. means you can't learn. But I have personally seen school districts constantly list these factors as excuses. Since they think this is a, hmmm, how about "cultural" problem, they want to act based on these factors. But even where legal, it's bad optics as they says these days.
So - we get this "free and reduced lunch" nonsense instead.
Regarding:
- Spending more money drives worse results. Which makes NO sense.
Actually, I could give you many examples in business where spending more money indeed led to poor decisions.
For example, at a former employer moving goods between locations required a four part carbon paper form. One for the sender, two for the receiver, one for home office for entry then inventory control. When received, goods were counted and tallied, the second copy then sent in for keying and reconciliation to the sender quantities.
During a recession, somebody looked at this and soon found that all this elaboration was introducing as many errors as it was correcting. The process was streamlined, with no loss of control, with big savings in data entry, mailing, and of course those expensive 4 part forms. This only happened when money got tight.
Similarly, I've seen businesses generating cash overexpand, like Starbucks did only to have to retrench, closing several hundred stores.
Schools can get into mischief too, like French Immersion, or domed practice fields - or big salary increases rather than fight the union when you can afford not to.
Speed,
I agree with your comment that waste proliferates when more money is available. Especially when folks have varying priorities, lots of different customers and little central control. The road to overspending is often paved with good intentions...
I still remember hearing one of the RAS Board Members saying something like Thank Heavens for our having some extra funds so we can offer this STEAM school...
Though I still defend my statement, "Spending more money drives worse results. Which makes NO sense." However I should maybe clarify by replacing "results" with "academic results".
Using STEAM as an example, spending more money may cause more financial waste due to extra work and inefficiencies. However spending more should provide academic results that are the same or better. Unless they are teaching something non-value added.
Thoughts?
"There are 2 possibilities that are certainly possible:
- Spending more money drives worse results. Which makes NO sense.
- The challenges within these student / parent bodies are extremely hard to overcome, if not impossible. Therefore we are not spending enough to get the results we desire or we are wasting money with little hope of success."
There you go with the good solid logic again. But back to the original premise, I must reiterate that the state aid formula fully compensates, to the best of anybody's ability to understand, for all of the demographic factors hampering the (mostly) urban schools. Therefore the remaining explanation, that urban schools spend their money on things which do not drive improved academic results (and thus get worse results), must be the truth.
The solution to our constant quandary here is simple: make the urban schools spend their extra revenue on things which actually DO drive improved academic results across all students. Let No Child Be Left behind.
J. Ewing
I am pretty sure the Liberals and many moderates will reject the "original premise" that your whole argument is based on. Otherwise we would not have the push for the MN Miracle part 2 going on.
"I must reiterate that the state aid formula fully compensates, to the best of anybody's ability to understand, for all of the demographic factors hampering the (mostly) urban schools."
Without that assumption, the logic falls apart.
Please help us understand your rationale that education funding is adequate or too high when it is far below the best of our local Private schools that have no where near the number of challenges and can actually expel the kids.
Liberals and many moderates have been known to be wrong. Their entire premise is that increasing the amount of money spent on education will improve academic performance and that simply isn't true, not in Minnesota, at least. Yes, it costs more to educate certain INDIVIDUAL children than it does other individual children, but that is relative and in no way implies that the absolute amount allocated by our current public school system is insufficient to any of them. If more money were the answer we would not be having the debate we are having. The only reason we are having the debate is because the public schools continue to perpetrate the myth that money matters and that effective education doesn't, to cover for their sinful failures.
Comparisons to private schools are neither necessary nor productive. One need only compare public schools one to the other, and you will find a 2 to 1 disparity between the results achieved for EQUAL spending levels, and that the more money spent the worse (in general) the results. You can say that it is because we have not fully compensated for demographics, and I think you have, but if the state aid formula is not intended to fully compensate for demographics then why does it include so many demographic factors like poverty and race?
J. Ewing
Post a Comment