Results 11 to 20 of 48
-
08-17-2011, 10:27 AM #11
He could expand the schools by a zillion. Would it necessarily help?
-
-
08-17-2011, 10:28 AM #12
Expand as in provide better tools to the children to help then learn and grow.
-
08-17-2011, 10:34 AM #13
Or expand in "throwing money at the problem"? Not saying there isn't an issue, but I think it is a bit misleading.
-
-
08-17-2011, 10:39 AM #14
How are you going to get better tools to learn? Hope that someone donates it?
-
08-17-2011, 10:46 AM #15
So you know that they don't have whats necessasary to learn? You know where the money was cut? It wasn't going to pensions and unions like in Ohio? You are making a ton of assumptions.....
-
-
08-17-2011, 10:47 AM #16
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...e-witless.html
Here's an interesting read.............
Now, onto dropout rates.
I had a few people email accusing me of "ignoring" the hideous dropout rate in Texas, reported by Krugman as over 38%. In no case have I seen a source citation for this number, which appear to have sprung, like the Goddess Venus, fully formed from a mythical clamshell.
A couple of notes on this. First, it appears that different states have traditionally used different definitions of "dropout." Some are more indicative of simple attrition - for example if High School X has an incoming freshman class of 200 students, and only 130 of those freshman graduated with the class 4 years later, it had a 35% "dropout rate" - regardless of the reason. Other states were more dilligent in tracking where the lost students went (GED, transfer to private schools, work, jail, etc.) before counting them as true "dropouts." As a result traditional state-specific dropout rates were hard to compare. That's why in my update to the last post I focused exclusively on the commonly-defined NCES dropout tables. You may quibble with their definition, but it is consistent and applied the same across different states. As an aside, reader Dr. William Borland (Principal Research Engineer, Georgia Institute of Technology, lah-tee-dah) points out that 2010 state-specific public high school dropout rates are now available- and bolster my case.
2010 Public High School Event Dropout Rates
White students: Wisconsin 1.4%, Texas 1.8% (national average 2.8%)
Black students: Texas 6.3%, Wisconsin 7.8% (national average 6.7%)
Hispanic students: Texas 5.3%, Wisconsin 5.4% (national average 6.0%)
While no dropout event is good, Texas is hardly the outlier national shame claimed by Krugman. In fact, it has below national average dropout rates for all 3 ethnic groups considered, consistently in both 2007 and 2010 measures. Among white students, Wisconsin had the second lowest state event dropout rate (NJ #1), where Texas was tied for 7th. Among black students, Wisconsin was #39, Texas tied for #24. Among Hispanic students, Wisconsin was tied for #21, Texas was tied for #17.
Again these are based on a one-year calendar, based on continued enrollment from one October to the next. I will note there is a difference in kind between the NCES definition of "event dropout rate" (leaving school during a given year) and "graduation rate" (a common class cohort from freshman year to senior year). Using the common NCES definition for the 2007-8 public school senior class, Texas had a 73.1% graduation rate, where Wisconsin's was 89.6%.
So Wisconsin ranked #1 on the average graduation rate measure, where Texas came in #35. Not great for Texas, but I would note this overall number does not control for ethnicity (I have been unable to find the relevant graduation rate breakdown). As an aside I would also note that even without such controls, Texas still outranks lavishly unionized California and NY. The curious thing here is the seeming parodox between event dropout rates and graduation rates. Even with compounding and taking into account population demographics, the overall graduation rate gap between Texas and Wisconsin seems much larger that what would be suggested by the year-to-year event dropout rate (remember, both are based on NCES standard definitions). My hunch - and it's just a hunch - is that the effect of family mobility is at play here. In order to track dropout rates, researchers have to track enrollment status of individual students over time. This also involves issues of privacy, and/or losing track of students when they move. Texas is a key entry point for immigrants from Mexico and Central America, many of whom later move on to other U.S. states. Once an immigrant student enters the Texas public school system, it is one thing to track their enrollment status from year to year; it is another thing to track their enrollment status from freshman to senior year, especially if they have moved with their family to, say, Nebraska. It's unclear to what degree this plays a role in Texas' dropout vs. graduation rates, but if it does the shorter-period event dropout rates are a superior measure of true student retention.
-
08-17-2011, 10:48 AM #17
Are you saying they do? Did you see the graduation rates?
-
-
08-17-2011, 10:50 AM #18
, Texas had a 73.1% graduation rate, where Wisconsin's was 89.6%.
So Wisconsin ranked #1 on the average graduation rate measure, where Texas came in #35.
35/50 states, and they are taking away $4 billion dollars? Not good in my book.
-
08-17-2011, 10:55 AM #19
No, I'm not saying there may not be a problem. But You need to evaluate with more then a stat from Paul Krugman types....
-
08-17-2011, 10:59 AM #20
So you think 4 billion would fix that? There are larger issues at work here. Maybe the family could help with that. Maybe the statistics don't take alot of things into account.
I'm not against money for schools, there just needs to be total transparency to where that money is going. We have had several issues here in my area of lies and abuse of funds for schools. I'm done with the threats and pleas.
-
Originally Posted by andrewhoya 
