Agreed on both. How would funding work then? Should it be handled at the state level, by U.S. regions like New England or the Mid-Atlantic, or should it stay at the federal level?
I wasn’t previously aware, but apparently, Canada leaves it up to their provinces to decide. Interesting that they perform so well when their system sounds similar to what those pushing for state control in the U.S. want.
Hah, yeah recently the Hawaiian monarchy is looking a lot better. We’ve already got the flag ready, maybe Australia or New Zealand will accept us into some sort of broad confederation.
This is for Hawaii, which funds schools at the state level, which one would expect to dodge the problem of rich schools and poor schools based on property taxes, but there’s still a whole lot of difference in school performance that mostly corresponds to rich areas and poor areas.
There are a lot of people spending pretty hefty sums to send their kids to private schools, but the school disparity referenced above is across public schools. Most kids still go to public school.
Schools are funded centrally. I don’t know enough to know how the funds are distributed, but I don’t think the disparity is just corruption sending more money per student to the rich areas. But there are still a lot of things that (on average) can cause disparate results. The best teachers would rather live in nicer areas, rich parents can pay for tutors and extra curriculars, rich parents likely have more access to politicians or administrators to make sure the school is serving their kid, poverty itself is disruptive to learning, etc.
The lesson I take from it isn’t that state funding is a bad idea, but that it’s not a silver bullet to erase the difference in educational opportunity.
I’m not an expert but I don’t think it’s any better it’s just less obvious due to their small population and it’s concentration on the southern border. When you get to rural and more northern areas my understanding is that they have similar problems. One difference is they don’t have the rich actively sabotaging it at every level like we do here.
Agreed on both. How would funding work then? Should it be handled at the state level, by U.S. regions like New England or the Mid-Atlantic, or should it stay at the federal level?
I wasn’t previously aware, but apparently, Canada leaves it up to their provinces to decide. Interesting that they perform so well when their system sounds similar to what those pushing for state control in the U.S. want.
🤷
I can tell you that the situation is pretty dire.
I think of the graduating at our local HS, Sr’s in 2024, only 12% could do math at their grade level? Might have been worse. Might have been 5%.
This is in Canada?
No Hawaii isn’t in Canda yet, but we’re hoping
#FormerlyAlignedWithTheBritishMonarcy
Whats interesting about Canada is that they have largely decentralized education with success. I wasn’t aware of that until recently.
Hah, yeah recently the Hawaiian monarchy is looking a lot better. We’ve already got the flag ready, maybe Australia or New Zealand will accept us into some sort of broad confederation.
This is for Hawaii, which funds schools at the state level, which one would expect to dodge the problem of rich schools and poor schools based on property taxes, but there’s still a whole lot of difference in school performance that mostly corresponds to rich areas and poor areas.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Hawaii and as I understand it, most that can afford to do so, send their kids to private schools. Is that true?
So the schools are funded kind of centrally versus locally with property taxes?
There are a lot of people spending pretty hefty sums to send their kids to private schools, but the school disparity referenced above is across public schools. Most kids still go to public school.
Schools are funded centrally. I don’t know enough to know how the funds are distributed, but I don’t think the disparity is just corruption sending more money per student to the rich areas. But there are still a lot of things that (on average) can cause disparate results. The best teachers would rather live in nicer areas, rich parents can pay for tutors and extra curriculars, rich parents likely have more access to politicians or administrators to make sure the school is serving their kid, poverty itself is disruptive to learning, etc.
The lesson I take from it isn’t that state funding is a bad idea, but that it’s not a silver bullet to erase the difference in educational opportunity.
I’m not an expert but I don’t think it’s any better it’s just less obvious due to their small population and it’s concentration on the southern border. When you get to rural and more northern areas my understanding is that they have similar problems. One difference is they don’t have the rich actively sabotaging it at every level like we do here.
Good points. Thanks.