OT education in Mississippi
- Thread starter paindonthurt17
- Start date
Madison Schools don't even come close to having the money the top schools in the Dallas metro do.
What's the difference in spending per student between Madison and top Dallas metro publics?
The reason that Mississippi is showing such success is public kindergarten. It moves those kids who come from disadvantaged families to school ready by the first grade. In communities like Tupelo, they go a step further and pick up there students at four-years old.
1- I am shocked that kindergarten isn't universally public in MS(that's how I read your post). It should be widely available in every public school district in the state.
2- Yes, universal preschool/statewide preschool funding is absolutely awesome. My state has had it since 2007 and it covers half day preschool. That can help a ton of kids while actually making it difficult for others to attend due to drop/pick logistics for families, but some school districts then go a step further and cover the cost of full day schooling to allow more kids to attend pre-k.
For all the insanity that my state has caused in public education over the last 6 years, I am happy that Legislators were at least not as crazy and extreme back in the 00s and we're able to recognize how beneficial universal preschool is.
It is statistically a success and objectively pays for itself over time.
Not even the NEA? My wife was a teacher, and she was a member of the NEA (National Education Association). She pretty much didn't have any choice, and allegedly they would give legal support in the case of malpractice suits. Fortunately, we never had to see if they really did. But one never knows nowadays.
I wasn’t. Unions have nothing to do with Mississippis success. Neither does MORE money.
On a per student basis it probably does. This is Madison vs Frisco. The difference being economies of scale as there's nearly 70,000 students in Frisco ISD vs less than 15,000 in Madison County SD.
Madison County SD
Frisco ISD
***The Frisco data is from 2020-2021 so the COVID closings saved a lot of dollars and that's why revenue and expenses don't match.***
The reality is the only needle mover in public education is demographics. But that's touchy. Income, race, and family educational attainment are big needle movers.
The biggest difference in the results between a Frisco ISD and a Madison County SD is the fact that 35% of Frisco ISD is Asian and those kids lift the rest of the district up. Madison doesn't get that.
Frisco ISD
Madison County SD
Results say both districts are in the +/- 95th percentile
You don't need advanced things for good education. It's great for gifted students to have access to more technology and labs, but you can prepare a good student to go to any school in the country and major in any major and be prepared with nothing but books, pencils, paper, a calculator, protractor, compass, and ruler.
Mississippi has shot up the rankings mainly by just not being idiotic about teaching. Just teaching reading in a way that we know works rather than use some crackpot idea somebody with a masters in education came up with will move you to the middle of the pack, even with poorer demographics.
I don't think people realize how idiotic our education system is as a whole and how for decades we have mostly been teaching in a way that we know doesn't work because that's the way teachers were taught to do it in college.
Teach the children well: From rural Oregon to Houston, students are learning more
Third-graders at Adrian Elementary School, in the poorest county in Oregon, have the highest reading proficiency scores in the state, reports Steven Mitchell of The Enterprise. Test scores were low before the pandemic in rural Malheur County. But four years ago, the district hired a reading...
www.joannejacobs.com
I didn't say it did. You are mostly correct.You don't need advanced things for good education. It's great for gifted students to have access to more technology and labs, but you can prepare a good student to go to any school in the country and major in any major and be prepared with nothing but books, pencils, paper, a calculator, protractor, compass, and ruler.
Mississippi has shot up the rankings mainly by just not being idiotic about teaching. Just teaching reading in a way that we know works rather than use some crackpot idea somebody with a masters in education came up with will move you to the middle of the pack, even with poorer demographics.
I don't think people realize how idiotic our education system is as a whole and how for decades we have mostly been teaching in a way that we know doesn't work because that's the way teachers were taught to do it in college.
Teach the children well: From rural Oregon to Houston, students are learning more
Third-graders at Adrian Elementary School, in the poorest county in Oregon, have the highest reading proficiency scores in the state, reports Steven Mitchell of The Enterprise. Test scores were low before the pandemic in rural Malheur County. But four years ago, the district hired a reading...
Just good schools? Students and parents make good schools. Schools are at the mercy of the bottom quintile and much of America is as well. They eat up a lot of resources and often remain in the bottom quintile educationally. It's really hard to do much with some of those kids. Americans in the bottom quintile also cause most harm to other Americans, commit most crime and ruin public spaces. Most educated Americans don't want their kids in classrooms with the bottomed quintile, their public spaces ruined by the bottom quintile nor do they want to live in neighborhoods occupied by the bottom quintile. Members of the bottom quintile are more likely to get a pitbull than those outside of it. Sounds harsh but notice how people behave, where they live and the choices they make.
i agree. It takes a lot to make a good school a good school.
Which is why I disagree with the scoring model. Its like going to a travel ball tournament and having an A, B, and C bracket and letting each of the brackets call themselves champions... when in reality the last place team in the A bracket would kill the C bracket winner.
Also anyone that thinks teaching to one segment of the school or making one segment of the school more important that the rest of the school (the lower 25% count for more) is really a good idea? Imagine what would happen if we just taught to the upper 25%... people would be livid... but we are totally fine teaching to the lower 25% in Mississippi. Some are even calling it progress.
I taught public school briefly. Wasn't for me. A lot of pedagogy and what's taught in colleges of education is just theoretically-driven nonsense. We've known for some time that the whole language method didn't work as well as phonics but education profs dug in and after phonics became associated with conservatives they refused to look at evidence and budge. But results matter: https://www.joannejacobs.com/post/t...-oregon-to-houston-students-are-learning-more
Doesn't matter. Spending has little effect on educational outcomes. Nationally we spend more educating poor blacks and Latinos than we do on high achieving whites and Asians.
There are benefits to both. On the one hand, societal progress is driven by probably 10% of the population. Less than 1% that are innovative and drive technology/science forward and then probably the rest of the10% that are at capable enough to help implement the ideas/tech created by the smaller percent.
On the other hand, it's probably the bottom 15-20% that put the biggest drag on quality of life. Vandalism, littering, theft, and violence that drives segregation by socioeconomic status is basically a bottom 15-20% of the population issue.
Of course schools aren't really good at helping innovation. Tha'ts more driven by intelligence and innate personality traits, but good education helps. And schools aren't really good at teaching people to be decent citizens and people. Again, that's more driven by intelligence and personality traits and homelife/culture. But good/better education probably helps on the margins.
I wish we would just commit more to grouping students by ability to make it easier to teach them age appropriate stuff. Parents have no problem trying to separate 7 year olds by ability when it comes to sports and pushing late bloomers out of sports before puberty so the early developers can develop more, but when it comes to something important like education where it helps people across the board to be with similarly situated people and also has a positive effect on society for more people to learn more, they lose their ****.
You just got pwn3d so badly, you didn't even realize it
Maybe pull your mask down so you can see better?
I didnt say it matters.
Another poster claimed spending is vastly different between those two and didnt say what the difference is, so I asked what the difference is.
Your comment in red is pretty acceptable at the elementary level and even into middle school for many things.
At the high school level though, students can be better prepared if you have subject specific classes that utilize current subject specific equipment and technology to allow students to experience and learn. Additionally, those classes open up opportunities to students by exposing them to job fields that they otherwise have no connection to.
CTE(career and technical education) classes can be for everyone and benefit everyone. Students can take classes on nursing, architecture, aquatic science, civil engineering, graphic design, plumbing, aviation tech, electrical infrastructure, landscaping, CAD, baking and cooking, cyber defense, veterinary services, business law, child development, design and fashion, construction trades, metalwork, automotive fundamentals, and much more.
This stuff exposes kids to future careers and gets them college and trade credit. It introduces kids to valid career paths which may not require a college degree, which is a popular cause to focus on for some adults right now.
Now of course kids can get a good education with 0 digital technology, like you claim. But that doesnt mean that is an effective way to educate teens and prepare them for their futures.
When one school district offers 75 different CTE classes and a 1to1 device program while a neighboring school district offers 0 CTE classes and just a free protractor and ruler, it shouldnt be difficult to see which district parents and kids will want to flock to. And with districts in so many states having to now compete with one another for students due to recent changes to open enrollment laws, no district in their right mind will follow your point.
^ unintended consequence of creating competition in public education- its an arms race to attract and retain students.
I agree with you that spending in general doesn't have a big effect and more spending generally is not good bang for the buck.
But the fact that spending more per student is not enough to have poor blacks and latinos in low SES school districts perform like whites and asians in higher SES school districts doesn't tell us much beyond the fact that spending per student is much less important than other things, primarily being from a higher SES home and being in a neighborhood and school with other students from higher SES homes, and all of the reinforcing positive externalities that come with that.
You'd need to look at how poor school districts with higher or lower spending per student that are otherwise basically the same perform to see how much extra spending helps. Of course that's hard to do also, as $10k per student in Mississippi means something a lot different than $10k in New York. Everything is going to generally cost more in New York and you're also going to probably have more money going to graft in New York. And there are non-financial related things that are hard to account for. There is probably a pretty poor school district in Utah that has a much less dysfunctional community in and out of the school than a similarly poor school district in DC or Chicago or Los Angelos MSAs. You aren't going to be able to compare those and get a good idea of how much more spending can move the needle.
I would differentiate preparation for education versus preparation for a career. Yes, that stuff is great for exposure to a career, but not that important for college with the exception of computer sciences, which I meant to caveat in my first post but forgot as I was typing. I would argue that if you have the time to do it, teaching without tech is actually more effective at education outside of computer science. Maybe also caveat labs for chemistry and biology and physics. Not technically necessary to know the material, but arguably being able to do the experiment and drive reactions is part of chemistry, and of course if you want to be able to actually do anything with biological sciences, the dissections and dna experiences and what not are helpful.
While I'm all for including technology, if it were a choice between a great teacher without it or an average teacher with it, give me the great teacher every time.
I don't think that's unintended? That's the primary argument for basically any type of school choice, even when it's just choice between public schools.
You just "pwn3d' yourself, and you don't even know it. His post mostly confirmed my point.
Last edited:
The unintended consequence I was referring to is the reality that an arms race was created...which costs money and focuses on tech.
I say that because nobody I have ever spoken with who has been in favor of turning public education into a competitive landscape has cited 'increased spending on more and more advanced tech' as a reason for them thinking the way they do.
Frisco ISD spends all that money on buildings though. They have a dozen 5a high schools, 19 middle schools, and 77 elementary schools.
Here are some smaller districts in the Dallas area that actually perform as well or better than Frisco.
Wylie ISD is spending less per student as Madison with less than half as many students. Ranked #169 (TWSS) in the country.
Here's Lovejoy ISD. A small but excellent district right between Frisco and Wylie. A third the size with a little more spent per student... But very highly regarded public education. Basically in the top 1% in the country for public schools.
Here's Madison County for reference. Still a great score, but $ isn't the difference... Demographics are though.
I went 35 years ago and the ACT was just something you took if you were going to college. Not really discussed, just an announcement about when the local JUCO would hold the exam.
I had family that went to Wylie, been there. All you have to do is look at the place and it's not hard to see why it out preforms Madison. Socioeconomic status is and always will be the best predictor of student performance when it comes to schools as a whole. It's been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that it costs more to educate the farther down the scale you go. Per pupal expenditure should not ever be used as the main ruler for school efficiency. Money matters, and it really matters the lower you go. I actually taught for a short while. It takes more investment, and not just in money, to reach the low end. Just throwing money at a bad school won't fix it.
I think that's because the entire point of school choice is that central planning is hard. Most people who would say things like "students will win when schools compete" would think it would foolish of them to think that they could predict exactly how that would playout across a state or country. I'm not shocked schools would try to tout their technology to compete. Depending on the community, that seems like an obvious option along with focusing on ACT/SAT scores and touting college readiness, or focusing on Votech and career readiness, or even just touting a safe, disciplined environment if that's not something a lot of schools in the area can offer.
Well at least you now see the unintended consequence I was referring to.
Your comment highlights a real unfortunate reality for those who have taken an axe to a problem that needed a scalpel- not only did they not predict exactly how it would play out, they didnt even attempt to predict how it would play out. It is unconscionable to support such drastic changes to state laws without having defensible information showing likely changes.
^ I know multiple state legislators in my state who are guilty of this and have read countless articles analyzing same/similar changes in other states that have quotes from stakeholders that complain about the same thing. My comment above is not simply a guess of mine or me taking a local experience and projecting it out.
None of this should be surprising since so many legislatures have used the exact same templates provided by interest groups/'think tanks' when crafting the laws.
Yes, it is an obvious option for schools to focus on, in addition to those other things.
It also highlights how completely unrealistic your claim is that a ruler, compass, and calculator will get kids into any college in the country and have them prepared for success. That hypothetical will always be a hypothetical because school districts wont ever try in a world where public education has been thrust into a poorly formed free market where schools compete for students. Its just a totally worthless hypothetical claim since it wont be tried.
I agree money matters, especially if you don't have a minimum amount. But it doesn't take mid performing schools to the top. Leadership and demographics (not necessarily just race but income, parents education and values etc) mean more.
Case and point.... Wylie doesn't have Madison money. I lived and worked in DFW for nearly 15 years. I lived in Frisco (near Wylie but bigger, nicer, more affluent) before I moved and while there I spent a lot of time on residential and commercial construction projects in Wylie... Wylie is not anywhere near as nice as Madison. Not even factoring in the higher cost of living in DFW (20% higher when compared to Jackson Metro) Madison has significantly higher income than Wylie.
Madison is much nicer than Wylie. It's where the less educated and less affluent folks live in the North Dallas suburbs. In fact, as far as DFW suburbs rankings it doesn't make that top 30 according to Niché. But the demographics are better than Madison in other ways and Wylie does something unique that most districts skip... Character education.
Wylie has a lot more blue collar workers than most of North Dallas. The school district leans into it and helps develop respectful and well behaved kids. It's called the "Wylie Way" and is very successful and costs next to nothing.
Everyone should be doing this.
The Wylie Way
Wylie income
Madison income
s
Like I said, I had family in Wylie for a while. I know about the place. It still doesn't have some of the socioeconomic factors Madison has to deal with, as you pointed out.
Why is having schools focus more on technology unconscionable? Even if parents are placing too much value on technology, you're talking about a system where they have spent decades avoiding teaching reading effectively because of some asinine idea that somebody came up with in a college somewhere that somehow became standard practice without anybody ever figuring out if it worked at all, much less whether it worked better than phonics. Overinvesting in technology at the expense of other options just doesn't seem like that big of a harm. And if it's really overinvesting, I don't think it will take decades to reverse it like if a state decided to overinvest in it.
Your viewpoint just seems alien to me and I have trouble understanding where it comes from. All sorts of horribleness and lack of accountability in public schools has been tolerated for decades upon decades, and a school overinvesting in technology because that's what they think parents want and that's unconscionable? I just don't get it?
I mean, it's just not unrealistic at all. Unless you are going to school for computer science, the technology part is relatively easy. Even in engineering, give me a student that can do the math and physics and understand it and also apply logic and if they have been neglecting learning the latest technology, it will be a breeze for them to catch up. Again, I'm not claiming that not using technology is optimal, but it's just not necessary to provide a education that prepares somebody for higher education, again with the exception of computer science.
Well, you don't have to have a school district try it. And you don't even have to have a school try it. It can be mixed in as an option in an individual school. But I think you're underestimating the likelihood that it will be tried. I'd be surprised if it isn't being done right now. It's not a new thing. I had math teachers that did not want us to use calculators and math teachers that liked to have us do some tests without calculators and some tests with a Ti-eightywhatever it was when I was in high school and college.
But again, I'm not trying to dictate how schools operate or what parents should look for in a school. What kind of *** hole would think they generally know what kids need better than the kids parents? I have nephews and nieces from the same parents that do better in different schools. My kids may eventually be in the same place. If I can't even tell you one way that my nephews and nieces should be educated, how much crazier is it to think that you can design a single public school that will work for every student in its district?
Ok, I think this is an instance where we there is misunderstanding at the most basic of levels and its causing confusion.
I dont have a problem with schools focusing more on technology and I didnt say that is unconscionable.
What I said is unconscionable is that legislators support such drastic changes without having valid info that shows what likely results will come from those changes.
Again, this is the logical result of legislators proposing and supporting drastic changes that they didnt write and dont fully understand because interest groups/'think tanks' are who wrote the laws and pushed them on legislators to pass.
This is accurate. If you know how to work the system you can inflate you can make your test scores seem impressive. Moss Point was an A rated school last year. A. Give me a break. With concordance, there's so many ways now you can offset things to make it look impressive and inflate your data. There's a system and everyone is learning how to beat it. Graduation numbers are also getting boosted because of MAAP-A, which is the state tests for self-contained, special needs students. If those students pass their test, they count towards the graduation numbers.
That just seems like an insane burden. By that standard you can basically never move in a more free market oriented direction because you don't know how people will respond when allowed to act on their own preferences and other people are allowed to cater to them.
We can't eliminate certificate of need laws because we don't know whether people are going to respond by opening up more hospitals or surgical centers and whether they are going to compete on price or convenience or quality of care?
I don't think anybody knew how deregulating airfare would shake out, but I enjoy prices being being 30% lower, and having the option of spending more if I want an experience that is further removed from a flying bus.
What do telecommunications and industry look like if we don't do relax regulations to allow competition in the 90's's?
I get there are potential problems when you remove some regulations without really moving it to something that can fairly be called free market, but this just seems like a weird one to get bent out of shape over. There are going to be scams and competition largely won't fix concentration of people from low SES households in poorer schools, but if we let parents have more say in their kids education they will generally produce better results than when left to a disinterested party seems like one of the safest bets you can make public policywise.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.