Posted by well... on May 23, 2007 at 18:37:56 (EST):
In Reply to: Re: smaller schools are better posted by Gotoutofdodge on May 23, 2007 at 07:00:18 (EST):
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : : : It's probably much lower than ours. So if you want to say that these districts have the answers, how about lowering our millage down to what theirs is?
: : : : : : Well?
: : : : : I can not lower our millage nor can you unless you are a school board member and even then you have to have a majority who think alike. I also do not have the inclination to research other district's millage as that has nothing to do with us.In the article called the hobbit effect, an article about smaller schools recommended by one on this site, it states that research indicates when socio-economic conditions are controlled, students in the small schools do well. Does this survey also prove the converse, mainly that larger schools also do well when the socio-economic factors are controlled?
: : : : Well bobo, all you did was give the 10 best and their attendance.
: : : : You didn't post what they spend each year. This district is not composed of wealthy citizens. Far from it.
: : : : You didn't post the millage rate for their property tax. Their millage rate is most likely lower. Ours is already probably double what most theirs are.
: : : : You didn't mention how many square miles their districts cover. Our district spans almost all of Armstrong county and some of Indiana county. We can't afford to haul all these kids this kind of distance 2 times each day.
: : : : Why don't you see if you can find some more irrelevant information to use for your argument.
: : : Does living in a effluent area make kids smarter? No they get smarter from better curriculums being offered. With the poorness of our district, all of the small schools suck up the resources that could be used to offer a better curriculum. the superintendent should be ashamed of hisself. these numbers are a direct reflection on the job he is doing. i could imagine looking for another job and saying oh yeah...over half of the school districts in Pa. have better grades than my school district. I know some of the teachers leave alot to be desired, but they teach from dictaed curriculums. they are not good enough..The superintendent has failed us by not seeing this and providing a better curriculum.
: : Yes, socio-economics play a huge part in academic standards. This is not a myth or legend. It is not even worth debating, if you cannot associate the impact of how socio-economic standards does not play a part in academics. If you have kids who do not have good support systems at home or through their schools, the academic achievements will reflect this. It is really common sense. Kids who come from broken homes or dysfunctional homes will most likely lack the structure to succeed. They do not have the discipline because their parents or guardians do not give them the nurturing and guidance that they need.
: : A better curriculum does not benefit these types of children at all. It is sad to day, but I believe we are seeing more and more of these types of households within this district.
: It is my opinion that there are probably more well to do families that are as dysfunctional if not more than you average family. Being well off does not make you a better parent. I know personally that my child, who is well nurtured, is far behind students in other districts and it all boils down to classes that are offered. it is the superintendent responsibility along with the board to make sure the best possible curriculum is provided. This district lacks that curriculum. Our district dows no score poorly because of we are working class famililies.
Maybe your kid is just not that bright.