Wow, I've been perusing that link and I am stunned, by many things.
Either the assessments are wildly inaccurate, or our society is in far deeper trouble than I had realized (and I knew it was bad).
The statewide percentage of students at or above proficiency is absurdly low.
In that context, schools in my county with <50% proficiency in math and in language (like varying from 10-50%) can be in the top 30% statewide and rated 8/10. To get a rating of 5/10, proficiencies need to be down to single digits.
The most troubled schools (mostly alternative or charter) tend towards a 10:1 student/teacher ratio, but the few truly near the top (90+% proficiency) tend to be more like 25-30:1, exactly opposite of what I had heard was a key factor. I assume that's because resources are being poured into the challenged schools, without much improvement. (The data goes back long before the pandemic and continues through it).
On the other hand, the California school districts with the highest budgets per student (eg: spending $740K per student in a small district in San Francisco) are not doing well either. Do they really average almost 3/4 million bucks per year per student, or is there some confounding factor enormously distorting the figures?
Can a highly leveraged high tech society survive based on a small fraction of highly competent people, along with a majority who are poorly educated? Especially in a political context of weaponized resentments and divisions, and a desire for universal benefits? Where "equity" is implemented by removing advanced classes so the more competent fraction cannot get further ahead, rather than by bringing up the less competent? It sounds like the recipe for some dystopian cyberpunk future.
Wow, I've been perusing that link and I am stunned, by many things.
Either the assessments are wildly inaccurate, or our society is in far deeper trouble than I had realized (and I knew it was bad).
The statewide percentage of students at or above proficiency is absurdly low.
In that context, schools in my county with <50% proficiency in math and in language (like varying from 10-50%) can be in the top 30% statewide and rated 8/10. To get a rating of 5/10, proficiencies need to be down to single digits.
The most troubled schools (mostly alternative or charter) tend towards a 10:1 student/teacher ratio, but the few truly near the top (90+% proficiency) tend to be more like 25-30:1, exactly opposite of what I had heard was a key factor. I assume that's because resources are being poured into the challenged schools, without much improvement. (The data goes back long before the pandemic and continues through it).
On the other hand, the California school districts with the highest budgets per student (eg: spending $740K per student in a small district in San Francisco) are not doing well either. Do they really average almost 3/4 million bucks per year per student, or is there some confounding factor enormously distorting the figures?
Can a highly leveraged high tech society survive based on a small fraction of highly competent people, along with a majority who are poorly educated? Especially in a political context of weaponized resentments and divisions, and a desire for universal benefits? Where "equity" is implemented by removing advanced classes so the more competent fraction cannot get further ahead, rather than by bringing up the less competent? It sounds like the recipe for some dystopian cyberpunk future.
I'm too depressed to check other states tonight.