St Paul Public Schools vs. suburban schools (Minneapolis, St. Paul: credit, neighborhoods)

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by 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.

I did read it and pointed out in my last post the flaws. Again, look at the high school numbers specifically...

As for the "poor" and "really poor" .

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by golfgal

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.

If you look at the middle- and upper-class people in Minneapolis and Rosemount, you'd probably find that their children are being pushed and driven about the same. In both school districts, they probably mostly have peers in their socio-economic level. And if that is the case, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find middle- and upper-class kids who think that failing is "cool".

And if Rosemount is anything like any other school I've heard of or that my friends attended, the smart kids weren't the "cool kids". That honor goes to the jocks, who may very well succeed in school, but plenty who are average. Those who typically have the highest GPAs were usually well-liked in my school, but they weren't the ones getting invited to every social event, they weren't particularly influential to other students (in other words, the smart kids had plenty of average or far-below-average friends, who didn't suddenly look up to these students as role-models), and they generally just were there. Success stories. Some were even...*gasp*...teased for being so bright!

[danielle_pal]

the link did not work. So, according to OP if you are poor your kids are better off in a suburban setting but mid and upper level class families children can send there kids anywhere? Interesting. I agree that parenting has a huge impact as well as the friends your children have. I want my future kids to have nerdy friends and go to band camp. And that is not a joke.

[1stpontiac]

FYI, here's a link that should work:
Urban vs. suburban matters little when it comes to student test scores, Pioneer Press analysis finds - TwinCities.com

GG, I'm afraid I don't understand your critique of the article either. They are comparing student by economic class (as defined by free lunch or not). In the city schools that means a larger percentage of the students are in the lower group than in the suburbs. It is addressing a different question than would be addressed by comparing the top 15-20% of each school.

Basically, the article is asking:

1) Given a particular socioeconomic background, is a student more likely to succeed at city versus suburban schools?
----Answer: For higher economic background, no advantage. For lower, more likely to do better in the suburbs.

Whereas addressing things as you seem to be saying they should asks this question:

2) Which schools highest achievers do better?
----Answer: Not addressed in this article, but maybe could be worked out from the links you posted.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by danielle_pal

the link did not work. So, according to OP if you are poor your kids are better off in a suburban setting but mid and upper level class families children can send there kids anywhere? Interesting. I agree that parenting has a huge impact as well as the friends your children have. I want my future kids to have nerdy friends and go to band camp. And that is not a joke.

I think from an individual perspective it doesn't matter as much; the number crunching shows that middle and upper-class kids do well in both settings, and it does show that a poor student is statistically less likely to do well in the city than in the suburbs, but it does not suggest that it's the suburban schools themselves that are making the difference. In some cases perhaps it IS the school itself that is the variable, but more likely is the "poor" versus "really poor" issue that was cited; there are far more (currently) "really poor" kids in the city, and they have greater needs than the simply "poor" that are impairing their ability to focus on school. In other words, there's no way to know (based on this data) whether these suburban kids are doing better BECAUSE of their location. I have a feeling that any poor parent who reads this article and is considering relocation due to school quality is already ahead of the game, and their kids are likely to do well anywhere, as they have a caring parent who considers education to be important.

For what it's worth, I also agree that peer groups are important; I don't think there's an easy way to quantify that, however. Schools with decent test scores and college-bound kids can still have a culture that elevates sports teams over the school's academics, even though I think these days as far as the kids themselves the top "jocks" are also likely to be top students. (as there is tremendous pressure these days for the top students to be everything to everyone: best on the field, best in the classroom, student council president, starring in the school musical, plus volunteer and maybe work a weekend job).

I'm a product of the Minneapolis Public Schools, and have since had experience volunteering and tutoring both their and in several suburban districts. Believe me, the middle-class college-bound kids are NOT looking at the kids who are dropping out and thinking "gee, that looks like the thing to do." I have, however, seen some evidence of some race-based peer pressure, and if I had a black kid, particularly if we were a lower-income family this might be of some concern; I would not want him or her to attend a school where to do well academically was seen as "acting white," and therefore to be avoided. I have, unfortunately, heard that talk from some kids in local junior highs.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by golfgal

I did read it and pointed out in my last post the flaws. Again, look at the high school numbers specifically...

As for the "poor" and "really poor" .

was the "smack" really necessary? Yes, there's a difference between the "poor" and the "really poor." (and that was a reference to a quote in the article we're discussing... are you SURE you read it?) I'm not sure what you're questioning. That said, everyone who qualifies for free or reduced lunches is struggling to get by. It's the "really poor," however, who don't have the stability of those who are "merely" poor. If you're bouncing from shelter to shelter or living in a car, struggling to meet the very basics of life, it's going to be that much tougher to concentrate on school than if you are living in a section-8 apartment and have at least some stability in your life. I'm not downplaying how tough it is for people who are "poor" (and there are plenty of families who make well above the federal poverty line who are also struggling), but there are indeed different levels of severity, and that can spill over into the academic realm.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by golfgal

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.

Thanks golfgal. Yeah, we know. You send your kids to the Rosemount Schools, the greatest school district in the history of the universe. Everyone knows your opinion on school districts because you remind us of that fact in practically every thread on this board.

I never said I'm sending my kid to some lousy school. No one said that. I believe that my involvement and guidance will do more for my kid than her teachers can or will. Sound rearing will help her choose friends with similar interests and values.

I know people who attended schools which I'm sure rank very highly on the list you keep (western suburbs) and didn't do all that hot and didn't attend college. Then I work with people who attended St Paul public schools. One of them is now in a PhD program. One of the biggest differences between all these people is the level of parental involvement.

[northsub]

Here's a list of metro public "normal" (non-charter, non-alternative, non-magnet, etc.) high schools sorted by the average percentage of non low-income students passing the math and reading exams ("metro" being a somewhat weird definition that is taking things a bit further away in the north, but I don't think it affects the trend). The bottom 6 schools are all in Minneapolis and St. Paul. This really doesn't mesh with the impression given by the article. (Minneapolis North didn't seem to have a math score, but has the 2nd lowest reading score.)

School, Math%, Reading%, Average%
Minneapolis North ?? 50 ??
St Paul Humboldt 21 42 31.5
Minneapolis Edison 17 55 36
St Paul Johnson 31 58 44.5
Minneapolis Roosevelt 33 62 47.5
St Paul Harding 35 69 52
Brooklyn Center 39 69 54
Robbinsdale Cooper 40 79 59.5
Columbia Heights 46 75 60.5
Richfield 52 70 61
Park Center 52 73 62.5
North St. Paul North 47 81 64
Big Lake 54 77 65.5
Coon Rapids 48 83 65.5
Minneapolis Washburn 50 82 66
St Paul Como Park 52 81 66.5
Bloomington Kennedy 49 84 66.5
St Francis 53 81 67
Osseo 51 83 67
Zimmerman 52 83 67.5
Fridley 49 87 68
Elk River 57 80 68.5
Anoka 53 84 68.5
Minneapolis Henry 51 86 68.5
Shakopee 56 82 69
Spring Lake Park 57 81 69
South St. Paul 65 73 69
Robbinsdale Armstrong 56 83 69.5
North St Paul Tartan 59 81 70
Blaine 59 82 70.5
Champlin Park 56 85 70.5
Henry Sibley 60 82 71
St Paul Highland Park 54 88 71
North Branch 56 88 72
Prior Lake 63 83 73
Inver Grove Simley 61 85 73
Hastings 64 84 74
Burnsville 61 87 74
Rosemount 67 82 74.5
Rogers 64 85 74.5
Forest Lake 65 85 75
Chaska 55 95 75
White Bear Lake 70 84 77
Hopkins 63 92 77.5
St Louis Park 65 91 78
Apple Valley 69 87 78
Eastview 66 91 78.5
Roseville 68 90 79
Lakeville North 69 90 79.5
Maple Grove 68 91 79.5
Orono 65 94 79.5
Lakeville South 70 90 80
Stillwater 68 92 80
Minneapolis South 69 91 80
Chanhassen 68 93 80.5
Andover 67 94 80.5
Bloomington Jefferson 72 91 81.5
St Anthony 72 92 82
Eden Prairie 71 93 82
St Paul Central 71 93 82
Eagan 74 91 82.5
Centennial 79 88 83.5
Wayzata 74 93 83.5
Mounds View Irondale 76 92 84
Mahtomedi 77 92 84.5
Minneapolis Southwest 81 90 85.5
Minnetonka 77 94 85.5
Edina 82 96 89
Mounds View Senior 88 94 91

[xandrex]

What this also shows is the vast inequality between inner-city schools. Because if you also look at the list (and assume that those at the bottom are the "best"), Minneapolis Southwest places 4th, St. Paul Central is 10th, and Minneapolis South is 16th. Those are ahead of many of the excellent suburban schools we have in the area.

How is it that those schools are ranked so high when they apparently are filled with kids who are "cool because they don't care"? Rosemount comes in at 31st. Does this mean there's more nasty riff-raff in the outer suburbs telling those kids that "it's cool to be dumb"? I think not.

[Mark_22]

Originally Posted by 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.

This doesn't surprise me. Look at the demographics of places like Highland Park, Mac Groveland, or Southwest Minneapolis. Probably just as affluent as Paradise - er, I mean Rosemount. Those parents aren't going to turn a blind eye if their kids are getting a lousy education.