St Paul Public Schools vs. suburban schools (Minneapolis, St. Paul: price, versus)

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Ah yes, test scores, the single and only indication of the quality of education and chance of success your child will have at the school and in life in general...

[Ben Around]

A few posters here seem to have completely missed the point of the article, but what can ya do? For me, the takeaway is that middle class kids can do just as well in city schools as middle class kids do in suburban schools. Middle class parents don't need to worry that if they send their kids to city schools their kids' educational outcomes will somehow be less than their peers in suburban schools. Again, this bears out our experience in enrolling our kids in SPSS schools. The urban (suburban?) myth that city schools are inferior places to learn is just not true. It's too bad this belief is so widespread. The city is a great place to raise a family.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by 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.)

I'm confused by your methodology- where are you finding or how are you determining the "average percentage of non low-income students passing the math and reading exams"??

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by Mark_22

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.

They're more affluent than Rosemount and likely most places in District 196. But the study wasn't studying the results of students living in specific neighborhoods, it was studying the scores of students based on family income (or free/reduced lunch status) regardless of where they live/which school they attend.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by golfgal

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 .

Poor families living in suburbs generally have had a few more 'options' than those living in poverty in the city. Options and possibly assets that allowed them to move to the suburbs (e.g., a car for instance). Many poor families that move to the suburbs often do so out of a concern about school districts- which, as stated in the article, are often based on perception vs. reality, but it would point to a higher level of involvement/concern for education on the parents' part.

And your above argument about the 'top' students in core city schools being compared to 'all' students in the suburban schools doesn't make sense or have any validity. Just because a student in the city is middle/upper class doesn't guarantee that they are a top student, just as being from a poor family doesn't guarantee a student's going to be low-performing. The study confirms that it's much more "likely" (statistically speaking) that this will be the case, however, in urban and suburban districts- and that middle to upper income students do well regardless of district whereas suburban school districts seem to have higher-performing low-income students. I'm not sure why you are concerned about skewed results due to so many students in suburban districts being middle income or higher- wouldn't the higher sample size skew the results in favor of suburban districts? (or are you saying that there are a lot of "average" performers in the suburbs from middle income families that you are concerned about negatively skewing the results?).

The study actually in many ways credits suburban schools for having statistically higher outcomes for low-income students, which you could possibly use as evidence to back of all the 'environment' theories you espouse on here related to peer influence. But maybe that's not the right demographic that declining suburban areas are trying to appeal to right now?

[northsub]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

I'm confused by your methodology- where are you finding or how are you determining the "average percentage of non low-income students passing the math and reading exams"??

2011 Minnesota school test scores

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Mark_22

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.

Then why are so many kids at those schools failing and why are ALL of those schools on the watch/restructure list .

[audadvnc]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Then why are so many kids at those schools failing and why are ALL of those schools on the watch/restructure list .

Come now, GG, you know the reason. Most of the kids in question come from poor families, often with inadequate adult presence in the home. For some parents it's a struggle just to get the kids out the door in the morning. Schools are working with a lot of damaged kids that need significantly more attention than NCLB and other unfunded gov't mandates can deal with. Punishing schools for taking in at-risk children is counterproductive and accomplishes nothing toward solving this generations-old problem.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by 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.)

Thanks for posting the link you used- regarding the bolded comment above, it should be noted that following the "bottom 6", there are 8 suburban schools, followed by one MPS school and another 8 suburban schools (and so on and so forth). And then schools like Mpls-SW are in the top 5. I guess at a glance I'm not seeing that your list contradicts the article when thinking about averages as a whole, but we would need to look at #s of students tied to the scores at each high school to know for sure.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

Thanks for posting the link you used- regarding the bolded comment above, it should be noted that following the "bottom 6", there are 8 suburban schools, followed by one MPS school and another 8 suburban schools (and so on and so forth). And then schools like Mpls-SW are in the top 5. I guess at a glance I'm not seeing that your list contradicts the article when thinking about averages as a whole, but we would need to look at #s of students tied to the scores at each high school to know for sure.

First, there are simply more suburban schools, period. Second, those suburban schools are the same ones that the city dwellers here keep touting as "good" schools, while the suburban dwellers say differently--so basically those inner ring suburbs that are at the bottom on the list fall into the same category as the St. Paul and Minneapolis schools...which is what we have been saying all along.

As for SW, if you look at the statistical data, over half the students there are on free lunches, 57% if I remember correctly, so that number is based off 43% of the students that attend vs a school like Rosemount where that number is based off 98% of the student population. I can guarantee you that if you took the top 43% of the kids at Rosemount they would equal or exceed the SW students....

Also, you have to factor in the Special Ed scores, 14% of the students that "count" in Rosemount High School are special needs, 10% at SW. Now, to clarify this, our neighbor boy is chronologically a 9th grader-so his scores count. His parents were TRILLED 2 years ago when he was finally potty trained. He functions at about the level of a 3 year old--yet he still has to take the same tests as the 9th graders taking AP classes--which is one big reason I hate this line of accountability to begin with.