High School graduates of the US

[lotrfan55345]

http://www.philipmalenfant.com/education

Ehh, wow ?!?! :amaz:

Some of these places have 3rd world rankings! Well I guess it's in the rural areas...

[Strife]

Hmm, I see my area is located around the 90% area in MA (upper right portion of the state), but I'm pretty sure its my high school that has our graduation percentage to -10% rather than 100%!

Edit: Anyone from Kentucky around here?... :grin

[lotrfan55345]

I see my county is in the 90% range, but the county south of it is in the 70% range. I guess the 90% is about right, but there are lots of druggies in the county south of us. (No offense)

Bigsky is form Kentucky!

[substand]

my county is in the 80-89.9% graduate range.... but what's the point of all this? are we just going to bitch about the crap school situation in the US, are we going to offer solutions... what?

If we're just going to bitch about it, then I'd like to bitch about the fact that we've tried the liberal way of thinking about schools (which, to a conservative or libertarian probably means "throw money at the problem and it'll go away").... we've tried it for several decades and it hasn't worked. maybe privatization and hence, incentive for profit/performance rather than "increase expenditures so we can get more money" will have a better effect. see a study by Chubb and Moe... its not free online from what i can tell, but if you have access to a university library online, or want to do some reading in an academic journal, here is the source:

John Chubb and Terry Moe, “Politics, Markets and the Organization of
Schools,” American Political Science Review 82(December 1988):1065-87.

I know its old, but it has some good points on both sides of the issue, but is more conservative if I remember it correctly...

[DarkAce]

You do realize in a lot of states there's corruption in schools that they allow people who don't deserve to graduate, to graduate, right? And it's not just a small percentage of schools allowing their athletes slides, or anything. But rather the schools themselves seeking higher ratings to reap the benefits that accompany those higher ratings.

[substand]

You do realize in a lot of states there's corruption in schools that they allow people who don't deserve to graduate, to graduate, right? And it's not just a small percentage of schools allowing their athletes slides, or anything. But rather the schools themselves seeking higher ratings to reap the benefits that accompany those higher ratings.

dunno if you're talking to me with that, but in case you are: yes, i do realize that. which makes the results in the map even sadder... and which still begs the question, "when will we stop simply throwing money at the problem and start attempting to identify its root cause? (which, given the fact that we give more and more money every year and the problem keeps getting worse, one would have to assume 'lack of money' is not the problem.)"

[DontBeAfraid]

The problem isnt the schools.... Its the students who arent meeting the goals. Students who dont meet goals in private schools get kicked out and are not counted as failures.... privatization is therefore not going to solve the problem of adults not getting diplomas.

[substand]

The problem isnt the schools.... Its the students who arent meeting the goals. Students who dont meet goals in private schools get kicked out and are not counted as failures.... privatization is therefore not going to solve the problem of adults not getting diplomas.

its certainly at a minimum part a student problem, and in my view, mostly a parent problem (as in lack of caring if the child does well, and lack of desire or feeling the need to help them succeed). I would sugguest that at least part of that, and maybe a major part, is the way the school system is designed- many parents (most of whom seem to be parents of "underacheiving" kids in school, from what little experience i have working in a school district, and what major experience i know from others who currently work in one) ... many parents look at school as free daycare, is all i'm saying- liek the nanny state takes care of thier kids. It would be quite different if they saw what they were paying for this nanny state- be it thru privatization, or mandatory showing of what percent of thier rent went to property taxes for schools (and then still allowing them to choose schools)....

[DontBeAfraid]

How many of these kids WOULDNT be in school if their parents had to start paying subs? That map would be the same or worse.

[substand]

How many of these kids WOULDNT be in school if their parents had to start paying subs? That map would be the same or worse.

Its tough to say how many wouldn't be in school. You cannot just assume that people won't have enough money to send their kids to school if you drop the school tax. As if dropping the school tax isn't enough, there would also be the element of competition that may (and probably would) drive prices for school down.

Dropping the school tax automatically gives each family money to send their children to school. Revealing how much money is taken from their taxes for schooling might also cause parents to demand more from schools. There are also egalitarian ways of dropping the tax or changing the school system so that even those who could not "afford" schooling after the privatization or partial-privatization, could still send their kids to school.

Schooling is a commodity, and the current situation does not lend itself to accountability. In order to have real accountability of school performance, one would need to send their kids to private school. Currently, only those who can afford both the tax for public schools and tuition at a private school (thus paying double+ for each child they have) have accountability and the option of changing schools. The only other "accountable" situation for parents is if theyare willing to uproot when public schools perform poorly. And what a cost that would be, not to mention a nuisance!

The main problem I see with the current system is that government has a monopoly in the school business, and having that monopoly gives them no reason to ensure good performance. You are forced at gunpoint to pay for their schools no matter what you do. If competition were introduced into the system, competition for lower prices and better services would probably ensue. The lower prices would help even more people afford it, and rather than public schools finding ways to waste extra money in order to receive the same or more funding "next year," we might have some efficiency in schools (the waste in public schools is well documented even in good school districts so i assume i dont need a link to anything for you- i assume it to be common knowledge- if i do need some links, let me know).

EDIT: Its funny to me how much Democrats (who seem to be more "for" the poor and downtrodden) tend to be against things like vouchers or privatization for schools, while Republicans (who seem to be more "for" the rich and priveledged) tend to be more for it... maybe this issue is more of a "government power" issue, with lib/dems being for more power and cons/repubs being against it... I can't see how a position against school choice benefits the poor (or even lower middle class)- it only keeps those constituents in shitty schools.

[DontBeAfraid]

How much are the poor paying for school through taxes right now subs?.... How much do the lower two brackets pay? How about the lower three?.... They arent paying for it now subs or they are paying very little. I ate lunch for free I wouldnt have eaten otherwise. If they had to start paying they wouldnt be going. THey dont have the money. Most of my highschool classes DIDNT have enough money for new books more than once every five years or so. Wasteful? Ya some, but not all.

If they had to start paying they would have to repeal the laws that say everyone under a certain age must attend school or your entire argument about holding schools accountable and making them compete is null.... So with the current laws there would be more private schools making money for individuals, instead of being not for profit, while providing the same performance.....

If the laws were repealed that map would be the same or worse.....

And either way there would be no way to regulate what gets taught anymore.... What if all the private schools that happened to open up in my area were religious? I would have to uproot and that could be a real hassle.

If there is anything people should be getting a bill for, instead of having it come out of their taxes, its the war....

[substand]

How much are the poor paying for school through taxes right now subs?.... How much do the lower two brackets pay? How about the lower three?.... They arent paying for it now subs or they are paying very little.


I dont know how much they are paying, and I'd venture to say, neither do they. But if we talk about the poor who cannot afford an apartment due to too high of a deposit, who have to live in motels each night, or even the poor who pay more for an apartment than they would be paying for a house payment because they cannot afford the down payment on a house, or the poor who cannot afford a house in a decent neighborhood ... then we are still talking about people whose children go to shitty schools who have no option to send them to better schools.



I ate lunch for free I wouldnt have eaten otherwise. If they had to start paying they wouldnt be going. THey dont have the money. Most of my highschool classes DIDNT have enough money for new books more than once every five years or so. Wasteful?


I didn't eat lunch for free in High School... I ate for about 15 cents a day, until they raised the price of a roll with butter to 20 cents, and then I ate for 20 cents a day, until they raised the price of a roll with butter to 25 cents... then I ate for a quarter a day... and me and my friends pooled what was left of our money and got the person who looked the oldest out of all of us to go buy cigarettes at the local convenience store. We were not poor by any means, and we weren't on free lunch- but we certainly knew many who were.

And most of my classes didn't renew their books either- instead our teachers tried to make us pay for destroyed books that were in shitty condition before we got them... and our school instead put what all money it could into athletics... I've read about buying ungodly amounts of towels to use "all the money" they had coming in so they could get more... Eventually, I proved myself enough to enter the "honors" classes. And even then it was all the same, except the cheaters cheated better and the "discipline problems" were not problems but "individuals expressing themselves." So we had a lot of shitty books and had to buy a lot of "literature" books at the bookstore for our own reading for class. I even got "help" in paying for AP tests and the SAT- and I know many who were more deserving than my middleclass self who did the same. Even my physics 2 teacher had her husband provide all the computers we had in our class for study... They were also there for here physics 1 students, but I was not in her physics 1 class... My physics 1 class didn't have any computers, and we were well into the "computer age" by the time i was in high school physics 1.



If they had to start paying they would have to repeal the laws that say everyone under a certain age must attend school or your entire argument about holding schools accountable and making them compete is null....


What sense does that make? I'm not talking about kids or students making a judgement call on "is your school doing a good job?" I'm talking about parents who send their kids to school, and what they expect their kids to learn. And even if all the parents are ignorant of how a school should perform, certainly after generations someone from shitty schools would figure it out... and even if not, your argument lacks the response to 1) having more money from a cut in taxes, which in this case, poor people probably pay more as a percent of income than rich, 2) having lower prices due to competition, and 3) the common sense notion that at a minimum, your worst case scenario is what we currently have, and that perhaps a change in paradigms could make it better.



And either way there would be no way to regulate what gets taught anymore....


We've seen what "regulation" of what gets taught leads to- millions of ungradumuhwated students... is regulation of what gets taught a good thing then? Who knows, but in my scenario, I have not said that regulation and standards cannot exist. In fact, I would put the bar higher. Currently, the bar is so low that a high percent of those who graduate are "worthless" anyway. Shooting higher will bring others higher as well. After all, there is something to be said about not teaching to the lowest common denominator, and there is something to be said about only living up to ones expectations... One of the big "contests" going around once I got into "honors" classes was "points per minute" on tests among students.


What if all the private schools that happened to open up in my area were religious? I would have to uproot and that could be a real hassle.

If all the schools that popped up in your area happened to be religious, then that says something about the market. The market in such a situation as I describe would be the ruler. So i if most everyone in your area wants religious schooling, then thats all you will have. If you have enough people who want religious-neutral schooling in your area, then there will be a school that supports it.

But I would venture to say that "religious" schooling is not all that bad- certainly there are enough non-religious people, or people of "other" religiouns who send thier kids to religious schools that have nothing to do with their own religion. I've known athiests, muslims, and jews who sent their children to private catholic schools. If your parents have raised you the way they want you to beleive, or if they give half a shit, then the school's religious indocrination will have little to do with how you beleive in a religious sense... for example, see the millions of Christians who go to "athiest" public schools who still turn out to be Christians, or the others who turn out to be athiests, or the others who turn out converting to some other religion.



If there is anything people should be getting a bill for, instead of having it come out of their taxes, its the war....

not that that has anything to do with the topic, but are you the one who always seems to be accusing me of setting up strawmen?

[Spartan117x]

my county over the 90% mark

[DontBeAfraid]

Subs, you are basing your arguement on supply and demand scenarios, as if the demand for schooling fluctuates.... If the laws say all children must attend school then the demand is high no matter how the schools perform and therefore it is not driven by competition. Just like the oil market.

Those in the lower tax brackets pay nothing Subs.... Well the lowest tax bracket pays nothing, the next pays between $700-$1500 total yearly, and the next pays $1500-$3000 total in taxes... Most of this tax money IS NOT for education.. Public schools are funded by much more than just the school taxes..... You didnt know this?

So your school didnt waste its money either? They were simply underfunded.... Or did your athletics department have an ungodly amount of towels?

I dont understand why you argue how well the system worked for you and your underpriveledged friends yet you beleive private schooling would work better....

Public schools and private schools do the same great job for great students, the difference is private schools boot the students who dont shine while public schools cannot. You argue that in my scenario people would eventually start complaining about the poor performance of the private schools who arent really competing after a couple generations.... How is that any different than the situation we are in now?

If all the schools that popped up were religious it really says nothing about the market and more about the investors.... religions get a much greater return, in their eyes, from indoctrina..... errrr teaching children.

It just hit me.... There is no need to worry about the poor not being able to afford to send their kids to school in a private market.... Im quite certain that the various religions would have NO problem indoctrinating more poor youth, I mean they get their money back after they have taught the children believe they are in debt by ten percent.

[substand]

Subs, you are basing your arguement on supply and demand scenarios, as if the demand for schooling fluctuates.... If the laws say all children must attend school then the demand is high no matter how the schools perform and therefore it is not driven by competition. Just like the oil market.

well, as we can very well see, oil is always in demand and the oil market prices fluctuate. I dont know if thats what you meant by your comment about oil, but it seemed by reading it that you meant "it is not driven by competition." In any case, you are correct in that schooling will always be in demand. You are wrong in assuming that monopolized schooling by the government cannot be beaten in price and quality due to the demand. There is always demand for food, but food prices fluctuate. The competition comes into play when you see that it is not the same product you are selling when it comes to school, but DIFFERENT products under the same "economic sector," so to speak. Similar to gasoline always being in demand, Shell gets about 5-10 cents more per gallon than Chevron does (in the Houston area)... They are both gas, and they both do their jobs well... Shell is preferred here, I suppose. Similarly, there can be competition amongst schools. While school A, which is 1 block away from me may charge 200/month tuition, school b may have a better track record at educating students, though it might cost be 300/month. Its a value judgement for me then, where to send my kid to school. Again, the current system makes me keep my kid in whatever school we happen to be closest to (for the most part), shitty as that school may be. So if I'm poor, my kids will be in shitty-performing schools. In the other system, I can choose to send my child to a better performing school.


Those in the lower tax brackets pay nothing Subs.... Well the lowest tax bracket pays nothing, the next pays between $700-$1500 total yearly, and the next pays $1500-$3000 total in taxes... Most of this tax money IS NOT for education.. Public schools are funded by much more than just the school taxes..... You didnt know this?

Again, your assumption that "the lower tax brackets pay nothing" is wrong. The lowest bracket in income may pay no income taxes, but they pay property taxes. Sure, they may not see that they pay property taxes because they pay rent to a landlord, but they still pay them- because who do you think the landlord makes pay? Surely you cannot assume the landlord just takes what he needs to make a profit on his rental properties, and benevolently pays the tax out of his own pocket? most education tax moneys are taken off property taxes, not income.



So your school didnt waste its money either? They were simply underfunded.... Or did your athletics department have an ungodly amount of towels?

I dont understand why you argue how well the system worked for you and your underpriveledged friends yet you beleive private schooling would work better....


I wasn't trying to do what you took it as meaning... I was kind of doing both. Mainly I was saying that in a lot of cases, my school wasted money. Even some in the "honors" classes. But I was mainly trying to draw a parrallel in that we had similar (to an extent) circumstances, and (as you well know because of yourself) we both turned out OK. Money is not the biggest problem, I think- rather parental involvment is. And if parents recognize what they are paying for school (or even that in fact they are paying for it, rather than thinking it as free), they may take more of an involved role in their children's education. I grew up lucky in that I had parents who cared. I'm no smarter than my friends whos parents didn't care, nor do I know more than them in most cases. But I can only name a couple of friends whose parents didn't care, where they still went to college. College may not be a big deal to you or me in determining "who's smarter," but it certainly is a big indicator as to "who's gonna make more money." If those parents had seen how much or even that they were paying for school, would they have pushed their kids harder? I couldn't give you an honest answer either way. But I can say with confidence that they would have been more likely to push their kids to do better, and take an active role in their education.



Public schools and private schools do the same great job for great students, the difference is private schools boot the students who dont shine while public schools cannot. You argue that in my scenario people would eventually start complaining about the poor performance of the private schools who arent really competing after a couple generations.... How is that any different than the situation we are in now?


I think you are right in that... as far as I've read, our "smartest" students aren't getting dumber... its the lower end that drops test scores. And I do argue that people will start complaining... some parents already take an interest in thier children's schooling... some dont. most of the time, its those kids whose parents take an interest who do better than the kids whose parents dont... it is precisely my point that if parents saw how much they paid for school, they would be more apt to take an interest in it. You cannot force them to do so through legislation, but you can encourage them to by playing off their natural interest in their money... will everyone be a good student? No, I don't posit this as a panacea... however, I think its safe to say more parents would take an interest, and thus, more students would do better in school.



If all the schools that popped up were religious it really says nothing about the market and more about the investors.... religions get a much greater return, in their eyes, from indoctrina..... errrr teaching children.

It just hit me.... There is no need to worry about the poor not being able to afford to send their kids to school in a private market.... Im quite certain that the various religions would have NO problem indoctrinating more poor youth, I mean they get their money back after they have taught the children believe they are in debt by ten percent.


I think you meant that as a joke, and its funny to an extent. But I'm responding anyway. If very few parents want their kids to go to religious school, then investors wont be moronic enough to insist on religious schooling. I still stand by my point. You may think that those investors may see a "return on investment" by brainwashing kids to be religious and into tithers. However, there is something to be said about a market.

For instance, FOX news is widely considered "conservative," yet other FOX networks show about the least conservative shows anyone can think of. For instance, the "Rescue Me" shown tonight on FX, to me seemed like softcore porn in a couple of instances, showing everything but a nipple and a vagina. Even because of the sexual movements, I'm sure most "conservatives" (in that respect) would rather have seen a nipple rather than obvious sex saying "oh yeah baby"... Again, it says a lot about markets.

There is also a lot to be said about kids who grow up in a religious environment- i have a close friend who grow up in anti-religious household who turned out gay, then straight, then super religious (to where you couldn't have a conversation with him unless it involved God). I have a friend who grew up in anti-religion who stayed that way. That friend's sister turned out pretty religious. I've got two roommates who grew up in a really religious household (they are brothers), turned antireligous, then accepted religion but not to the extreme one would expect. I grew up in an a-religious home (muslim/christian where religion wasn't ever brought up) and chose "for myself" (no doubt being influenced by my everyday surroundings in the US).

The examples abound where people rebel or become complacent. The only part about your last statement that is indisputable is that yes, even religious schools take "charity cases," .... there are scholarships available now, even for people of different religions, and there would still be scholarships available in the future I am trying to describe.

Maybe the scholarships aren't given with the best of intentions- maybe the sole purpose is to convert an "evil" kid to a "righteous" one- but thats the great thing about capitalism- the means dont have to justify the ends... if a company decides to build gas-electric hybrids- it may be because they want to avoid criticism from environmentalists, and not because they want to save the environment.... the point is that it gets done- even in the case that a religious school accepts a satanist- they hope not to provide him with a good education, but to convert him... well, he gets a good education anyway, and chooses for himself later.