St Paul Public Schools vs. suburban schools (Minneapolis, St. Paul: middle-class, home)

[Ben Around]

There's an interesting article in today's Pioneer Press about school quality:
http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_...nclick_check=1

It seems the PiPress staff did an analysis of recent reading and math test scores, correlating them with school location. Contrary to the beliefs of many, many St Paul public school students are learning on par with their suburban counterparts: Test scores are virtually the same for students from middle- and upper-income families on statewide reading and math tests, no matter where they live.

This analysis pretty much validates our experience with sending our 2 kids to SPSS schools. The predictor really is the kid's economic and social circumstances, not the location of the school. These results fly in the face of many middle class parents who outright refuse to send their child to a city school because they feel the city schools are somehow inferior.

[cheddar]

I was not surprised by the Pioneer Press results. We are very happy with the SPPS (although not happy with some of the recent cutbacks, which are a problem everywhere. )

[golfgal]

Minnesota schools data

Interesting because it seems to totally contradict this information about test scores on individual schools in St. Paul.

[northsub]

I saw this earlier, and it surprised me a bit. A couple of thoughts:

If you look at high schools, many of the St. Paul and Minneapolis schools are well behind most (all?) suburban schools, assuming you use these pass rates as a measuring stick. Unless I missed one, it looks like the 6 lowest math and 6 lowest reading scores for high schools in the metro are all Minneapolis and St. Paul schools (I'm looking at 69 metro high schools and only doing "normal" track ones). There are a few city schools that do well: St. Paul Central, Minneapolis South, and Minneapolis Southwest. To not mention that all of the lowest scoring high schools are urban seems like a troubling omission by the author (was this not noticed? or does it not just fit their storyline?).

I'm curious what the numbers would be if you broke them down by grade level (compare high school vs. high school, elementary vs. elementary, etc.). I was under the impression that A) the number of students passing these tests decreases at the higher grades and B) the urban schools tend to have proportionately more students at the lower grade levels. These things would inflate the urban scores as a district. I'm not sure if it would be to a degree that actually mattered though.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by northsub

I saw this earlier, and it surprised me a bit. A couple of thoughts:

If you look at high schools, many of the St. Paul and Minneapolis schools are well behind most (all?) suburban schools, assuming you use these pass rates as a measuring stick. Unless I missed one, it looks like the 6 lowest math and 6 lowest reading scores for high schools in the metro are all Minneapolis and St. Paul schools (I'm looking at 69 metro high schools and only doing "normal" track ones). There are a few city schools that do well: St. Paul Central, Minneapolis South, and Minneapolis Southwest. To not mention that all of the lowest scoring high schools are urban seems like a troubling omission by the author (was this not noticed? or does it not just fit their storyline?).

I'm curious what the numbers would be if you broke them down by grade level (compare high school vs. high school, elementary vs. elementary, etc.). I was under the impression that A) the number of students passing these tests decreases at the higher grades and B) the urban schools tend to have proportionately more students at the lower grade levels. These things would inflate the urban scores as a district. I'm not sure if it would be to a degree that actually mattered though.

If you look at the link I posted, you can find individual scores there for every school in the state.

[uptown_urbanist]

Thanks for posting, BenAround. This doesn't surprise me, either.

To those who are surprised: did you read the article closely? They're comparing students, not schools. The lack of difference was for middle-class and upper-class children, which certainly comes as no surprise to most of us who have had personal experience with the local urban districts.

Where things get trickier is for low-income kids, as many poor kids in the suburbs ARE outperforming their peers in the city, but again, the article does point out that there's "poor" and then "really poor," with the really poor still mostly concentrated within city limits (although that, too, is changing). Those kids need support that goes far beyond what the school districts can realistically provide.

When it comes right down to it, this study really just backs up common sense. Kids with parents who care about education, and who can provide their kids with a stable home (and food, health care, etc.) are going to do well in school.

My favorite quote from the article, and one that I think EVERYONE on this forum should heed:
And once parents make that choice, they're invested. Parents are their school's biggest cheerleader, which sometimes turns into belittling the choices of others.

'Sometimes, we wholeheartedly reject the options we haven't picked," said St. Paul parent Hobbie. "There's more than one right answer in Minnesota. And we're lucky that's the case."

Amen to that.

[Globe199]

Of course it's common sense. The single greatest predictor for student success is the level of parental involvement, not the school or the district, or any of that.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Thanks for posting, BenAround. This doesn't surprise me, either.

To those who are surprised: did you read the article closely? They're comparing students, not schools. The lack of difference was for middle-class and upper-class children, which certainly comes as no surprise to most of us who have had personal experience with the local urban districts.

Where things get trickier is for low-income kids, as many poor kids in the suburbs ARE outperforming their peers in the city, but again, the article does point out that there's "poor" and then "really poor," with the really poor still mostly concentrated within city limits (although that, too, is changing). Those kids need support that goes far beyond what the school districts can realistically provide.

When it comes right down to it, this study really just backs up common sense. Kids with parents who care about education, and who can provide their kids with a stable home (and food, health care, etc.) are going to do well in school.

My favorite quote from the article, and one that I think EVERYONE on this forum should heed:
And once parents make that choice, they're invested. Parents are their school's biggest cheerleader, which sometimes turns into belittling the choices of others.

'Sometimes, we wholeheartedly reject the options we haven't picked," said St. Paul parent Hobbie. "There's more than one right answer in Minnesota. And we're lucky that's the case."

Amen to that.

The article is not comparing students on an apples to apples basis--if you go with your premise that only the middle and upper class students are doing well in the 'urban' schools. If you look at the data from the high schools in Minneapolis and St. Paul you will see that only they are comparing the top students in those schools to all of the students in the suburbs. You will also see a DRASTIC drop of in test scores once kids reach high school. THAT is what everyone is talking about that you just don't get. EVERY high school in Minneapolis and St. Paul is on the watch/restructure list, every single one. While I don't really agree with the testing parameters with NCLB if you break down the scores, it isn't just the "poor" kids that aren't making the grade in these schools and that IS a problem. They are comparing the top what 15-20 % of the kids in the urban schools to all of the kids in the suburban schools, why, because they have taken out the 'poor' kids in the overall numbers. Sure, a suburban school might only have 2% of their kids on free/reduced lunch but then that means the rest of the data is for the other 98% of the kids. If you look at the urban schools, the numbers are almost reversed and maybe only 20% or so are not on free/reduced lunch.

I'm not quite sure how being poor in Minneapolis is any different then being poor in Rosemount though .

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Of course it's common sense. The single greatest predictor for student success is the level of parental involvement, not the school or the district, or any of that.

See, this is where you are wrong. Peers have the greatest influence on kids during their 'formative' years and while having a strong family support can overcome this in many cases, the reality is that their friends are ultimately going to have more influence on their choices, good and bad, then you are. If you want your kids attending school where less then half the kids graduate, hey, more power to you. We prefer to send our kids to a school where the "cool" kids are the smart kids and doing well in school is the norm, not the exception.

[uptown_urbanist]

Wait a minute here, how is the Pioneer Press research not comparing apples-to-apples?

The poverty thing, for example; the article explicitly mentions "poor" and then "really poor." Most of the poor kids in Rosemount probably fit only in the "poor" category.

I think you are the classic example of some of the parents cited in the article -- one of the parents who "feeds into the myths" and who is "wholeheartedly rejecting the option we haven't picked."

Did you even READ the article? From your comments, I'm assuming not. And THAT is what local schools are up against -- parents who simply can't be bothered to look at facts, and who insist on making everything into a competitive battle. I'm sure schools in Rosemount are good, although there are obviously kids there who are failing, too. Or the nearly half of Rosemount High School tenth graders who aren't meeting math standards. Unfortunately we could transport them all to St. Paul and there's no reason to expect that they'd do any better.