Public schooling versus CM schools

[Judas Maccabeus]

I've been a teacher in conservative Mennonite schools for nearly 20 years. (I also attended public schools from grades 1 through 6.) I've mostly taught students in grades 7–12, in four different communities. I'm afraid that in some ways there are fewer differences between our schools and public schools than we would care to admit. I don't mean to be negative, but I think it's important to be honest and realistic about the problems we face, avoiding complacency and pride ("I thank thee, Lord, that I am not as other men are").

Many of the issues mentioned in the first few posts in this thread are all too familiar to me. I've taught 8th graders how to sound out words. I once had to teach a high school senior how to divide properly. Many students fail to follow basic directions. Many simply don't do their homework. I've had students who don't know things like whether the Civil War or World War II came first, or that meat is animal muscle. It's not unusual to receive writing assignments with depressingly erratic grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and no paragraph divisions. Excessive absences have consistently been a headache. Many students will put forth a surprising amount of effort to avoid having to think. I could go on.

Nor are the social ills often associated with public schools and their problems absent from our schools and communities. I'm pretty sure I've always had at least one student being raised by a single parent. I've seen the effects of abuse, family dysfunction, and illegal drug use—just about everything you can think of except for homelessness and similar levels of poverty, which I don't think I've seen any of my students deal with. I'm on the planning committee for a large annual gathering of conservative Anabaptist teachers (Teachers Week at Faith Builders), and helping students who have experienced trauma is consistently one of the most in-demand topics for breakout sessions and workshops. These issues probably exist at lower rates among Mennonite students (as far as I know I've only had a single student that used illegal drugs, for example), but they are definitely present.

Some of these problems exist simply because learning is a complex, challenging undertaking for many students. Some find academic work extraordinarily difficult. Some are just lazy. As others have mentioned, parents' attitudes and involvement have a major impact. Education is a low priority for many Mennonite parents. I've often dealt with parents who have very lackadaisical approaches to their children's homework, or see little point in learning that has no obvious occupational or economic benefit. Mennonites often value their schools as community centers rather than as educational institutions. (I hasten to add that I've worked with many other parents who are deeply concerned that their children reach their academic potential, and work very hard to help their children excel.)

Our schools do have significant strengths. We have the opportunity to educate in the context of our beliefs and values. I think the schools I've taught in have been generally successful in fostering supportive, harmonious atmospheres. I've seen very few instances of bullying, and I don't think I've ever had to break up a physical fight.

A few years ago I heard about an effort to compile standardized test scores from Mennonite schools that could potentially be used to make comparisons with other schools, but I don't know what came of that. From what I recall of my own students' standardized test scores, they tend to fall in the percentile rankings I would expect based on their abilities. Other than that I have no hard data, so take the following for whatever it's worth. I suspect that our conservative Anabaptist schools, academically, provide a higher floor but reach a lower ceiling when compared with public schools. My hypothesis is that they avoid the very worst outcomes due largely to lower rates of poverty and higher rates of two-parent families, and do not reach the highest levels of achievement due largely to the lack of resources given toward helping the most capable students reach their full potential.

I think your comparison to public schools depends upon which public schools you are comparing them to. Here in Maryland we have Howard county, and that would be a really high bar, they are some of the best nationwide. We would not be able to reach their ceiling. Even in the schools my daughters went to, in one of the other counties, my brighter daughter did AP calculus and AP art studio. Those would almost never be found in a church school.

On the other hand we have the jurisdiction our school is located in. One would struggle to find a lower floor.

[joshuabgood]

I've been a teacher in conservative Mennonite schools for nearly 20 years. (I also attended public schools from grades 1 through 6.) I've mostly taught students in grades 7–12, in four different communities. I'm afraid that in some ways there are fewer differences between our schools and public schools than we would care to admit. I don't mean to be negative, but I think it's important to be honest and realistic about the problems we face, avoiding complacency and pride ("I thank thee, Lord, that I am not as other men are").

Many of the issues mentioned in the first few posts in this thread are all too familiar to me. I've taught 8th graders how to sound out words. I once had to teach a high school senior how to divide properly. Many students fail to follow basic directions. Many simply don't do their homework. I've had students who don't know things like whether the Civil War or World War II came first, or that meat is animal muscle. It's not unusual to receive writing assignments with depressingly erratic grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and no paragraph divisions. Excessive absences have consistently been a headache. Many students will put forth a surprising amount of effort to avoid having to think. I could go on.

Nor are the social ills often associated with public schools and their problems absent from our schools and communities. I'm pretty sure I've always had at least one student being raised by a single parent. I've seen the effects of abuse, family dysfunction, and illegal drug use—just about everything you can think of except for homelessness and similar levels of poverty, which I don't think I've seen any of my students deal with. I'm on the planning committee for a large annual gathering of conservative Anabaptist teachers (Teachers Week at Faith Builders), and helping students who have experienced trauma is consistently one of the most in-demand topics for breakout sessions and workshops. These issues probably exist at lower rates among Mennonite students (as far as I know I've only had a single student that used illegal drugs, for example), but they are definitely present.

Some of these problems exist simply because learning is a complex, challenging undertaking for many students. Some find academic work extraordinarily difficult. Some are just lazy. As others have mentioned, parents' attitudes and involvement have a major impact. Education is a low priority for many Mennonite parents. I've often dealt with parents who have very lackadaisical approaches to their children's homework, or see little point in learning that has no obvious occupational or economic benefit. Mennonites often value their schools as community centers rather than as educational institutions. (I hasten to add that I've worked with many other parents who are deeply concerned that their children reach their academic potential, and work very hard to help their children excel.)

Our schools do have significant strengths. We have the opportunity to educate in the context of our beliefs and values. I think the schools I've taught in have been generally successful in fostering supportive, harmonious atmospheres. I've seen very few instances of bullying, and I don't think I've ever had to break up a physical fight.

A few years ago I heard about an effort to compile standardized test scores from Mennonite schools that could potentially be used to make comparisons with other schools, but I don't know what came of that. From what I recall of my own students' standardized test scores, they tend to fall in the percentile rankings I would expect based on their abilities. Other than that I have no hard data, so take the following for whatever it's worth. I suspect that our conservative Anabaptist schools, academically, provide a higher floor but reach a lower ceiling when compared with public schools. My hypothesis is that they avoid the very worst outcomes due largely to lower rates of poverty and higher rates of two-parent families, and do not reach the highest levels of achievement due largely to the lack of resources given toward helping the most capable students reach their full potential.

This resonates with me. I also have had a lot of experience in public school and Christian school.

[Ken]

I've spent most of my teaching time in public schools but have been around various charter and private schools as well.

From a purely educational perspective, I would say the greatest advantage of small private schools is class size. There are a lot more things you can do with classes of 10 or 15 students than you can do with 30. And students with particular needs can benefit from smaller settings. Private schools can also pick and choose their students, public schools cannot.

The biggest advantage of public schools (at least the median public schools) is resources. With the exception of elite private prep schools with big endowments, most public schools have greater resources and funding.

There are also economies of scale. Large schools can simply have more facilities and specialization than small schools. This affects students differently. Your average "mainstream" student who might do a little of everything might thrive in a smaller school setting where there is less competition. By contrast, the more eclectic student with more narrow interests may thrive in a larger school where there may be more of a critical mass of other students and facilities in something specific like computer engineering or health sciences or music. And big schools can simply offer more advanced and specialized classes.

I've seen people make various arguments in favor of small or large schools. I think the answer depends very much on the type of student you are talking about. Some are better served in small settings where they can get more attention. Some are better served in larger settings where they can find like-minded peers and specialize in their interests.

There was a small schools movement in public education about 2 decades ago led by Bill Gates (who threw in a LOT of seed money) that mostly turned into a fiasco and waste of resources. And we've since moved away from it.

[joshuabgood]

I've spent most of my teaching time in public schools but have been around various charter and private schools as well.

From a purely educational perspective, I would say the greatest advantage of small private schools is class size. There are a lot more things you can do with classes of 10 or 15 students than you can do with 30. And students with particular needs can benefit from smaller settings. Private schools can also pick and choose their students, public schools cannot.

The biggest advantage of public schools (at least the median public schools) is resources. With the exception of elite private prep schools with big endowments, most public schools have greater resources and funding.

There are also economies of scale. Large schools can simply have more facilities and specialization than small schools. This affects students differently. Your average "mainstream" student who might do a little of everything might thrive in a smaller school setting where there is less competition. By contrast, the more eclectic student with more narrow interests may thrive in a larger school where there may be more of a critical mass of other students and facilities in something specific like computer engineering or health sciences or music. And big schools can simply offer more advanced and specialized classes.

I've seen people make various arguments in favor of small or large schools. I think the answer depends very much on the type of student you are talking about. Some are better served in small settings where they can get more attention. Some are better served in larger settings where they can find like-minded peers and specialize in their interests.

There was a small schools movement in public education about 2 decades ago led by Bill Gates (who threw in a LOT of seed money) that mostly turned into a fiasco and waste of resources. And we've since moved away from it.

I agree with this assessment mostly...however I think the biggest win for the small private schools is the personalization...that is that everyone knows everyone. It is a community in a way that the high school I worked at (which was a great school - one of the best in Brooklyn) never was - as we had nearly 4K students. But your point about the resources is well made. We were a comprehensive high school.

[Ken]

I've spent most of my teaching time in public schools but have been around various charter and private schools as well.

From a purely educational perspective, I would say the greatest advantage of small private schools is class size. There are a lot more things you can do with classes of 10 or 15 students than you can do with 30. And students with particular needs can benefit from smaller settings. Private schools can also pick and choose their students, public schools cannot.

The biggest advantage of public schools (at least the median public schools) is resources. With the exception of elite private prep schools with big endowments, most public schools have greater resources and funding.

There are also economies of scale. Large schools can simply have more facilities and specialization than small schools. This affects students differently. Your average "mainstream" student who might do a little of everything might thrive in a smaller school setting where there is less competition. By contrast, the more eclectic student with more narrow interests may thrive in a larger school where there may be more of a critical mass of other students and facilities in something specific like computer engineering or health sciences or music. And big schools can simply offer more advanced and specialized classes.

I've seen people make various arguments in favor of small or large schools. I think the answer depends very much on the type of student you are talking about. Some are better served in small settings where they can get more attention. Some are better served in larger settings where they can find like-minded peers and specialize in their interests.

There was a small schools movement in public education about 2 decades ago led by Bill Gates (who threw in a LOT of seed money) that mostly turned into a fiasco and waste of resources. And we've since moved away from it.

I agree with this assessment mostly...however I think the biggest win for the small private schools is the personalization...that is that everyone knows everyone. It is a community in a way that the high school I worked at (which was a great school - one of the best in Brooklyn) never was - as we had nearly 4K students. But your point about the resources is well made. We were a comprehensive high school.

Yes I agree. But everything is a tradeoff. What you gain in terms of personalization in a small school you lose in specialization. A school with 300 students is going to be able to give individual students lots of attention but won't be able to offer things like AP Physics C or AP Mandarin Chinese. So it really depends on the student. and what you want out of education.

At the lower grades size is less of an issue as most elementary classrooms are mostly stand-alone and kids don't do much outside the one classroom.

[Josh]

If resources are important, why does Baltimore have such poor results despite very high spending per student?

[Ken]

If resources are important, why does Baltimore have such poor results despite very high spending per student?

Spending does not necessarily equal resources. Many older districts have huge deferred maintenance backloads and things like inefficient buildings that make them much more costly to operate then newer districts in the suburbs with new facilities.

And resources are not the sole ingredient for success and performance as there are a lot of other factors like poverty which affect school performance as well.

But then you knew that already.

[Judas Maccabeus]

If resources are important, why does Baltimore have such poor results despite very high spending per student?

Spending does not necessarily equal resources. Many older districts have huge deferred maintenance backloads and things like inefficient buildings that make them much more costly to operate then newer districts in the suburbs with new facilities.

And resources are not the sole ingredient for success and performance as there are a lot of other factors like poverty which affect school performance as well.

But then you knew that already.

It is not so much older buildings or maintenance, in Maryland, all school construction has been funded by the state, and rural counties have more than their share of older buildings. Finding ratings for schools on a countywide basis is somewhat difficult, as most states break up their school districts so that there are several in each county. Maryland does not do this, school districts are county wide.

So let's get started, Niche.com has some interesting ratings. Nationwide it rates Maryland's Howard county as #3 nationwide, and Montgomery county #8. To a marylander, this is no surprise, these districts have been highly regarded for years.

So I will use Howard County. This is what I found:

grade A+
Overall Niche Grade
Academics
grade A
Diversity
grade A
Teachers
grade A minus
College Prep
grade A+
Clubs & Activities
grade A
Administration
grade A
Sports
grade A
Food
grade C
Resources & Facilities
grade B+

This is no surprise. Now, Baltimore City:
grade C+
Overall Niche Grade
Academics
grade C minus
Diversity
grade A minus
Teachers
grade C+
College Prep
grade C+
Clubs & Activities
grade B+
Administration
grade C+
Sports
grade A
Food
grade C minus
Resources & Facilities
Grade B.

So, how much does each spend, on a per pupil basis?
Accd to Md Assoc. of Counties, 2019 is most recent published:
Howard County-16,630
Baltimore City- 17,493

The city spends more per pupil, in fact it is almost top of table in the state. It is, in fact, #3 with only 2 rural counties ahead of it. I do not think resources are the problem, they seem to be well funded. So what is? Let's look at what I suspect:

Single-parent Households with Children as a Percentage of Households with Children, Annual, From the St. Louis federal reserve

Howard County-20.8 %
Baltimore City-56.3 %

There you have it, folks. MOST children in the city grow up with only one, likely working parent in the home. In Howard counts, only about one out of five. It is likely lack of the "Marriage Advantage." Income is likely a factor as well, but this is likely related to the fact that most households are single parent, average household income:

Howard County-88,927$
Baltimore City-59,807

Once again, it is in my estimation the breakdown of families that is driving it, not school expenditure.

[Ken]

So, how much does each spend, on a per pupil basis?
Accd to Md Assoc. of Counties, 2019 is most recent published:
Howard County-16,630
Baltimore City- 17,493

The city spends more per pupil, in fact it is almost top of table in the state. It is, in fact, #3 with only 2 rural counties ahead of it. I do not think resources are the problem, they seem to be well funded. So what is? Let's look at what I suspect:

Single-parent Households with Children as a Percentage of Households with Children, Annual, From the St. Louis federal reserve

Howard County-20.8 %
Baltimore City-56.3 %

There you have it, folks. MOST children in the city grow up with only one, likely working parent in the home. In Howard counts, only about one out of five. It is likely lack of the "Marriage Advantage." Income is likely a factor as well, but this is likely related to the fact that most households are single parent, average household income:

Howard County-88,927$
Baltimore City-59,807

Once again, it is in my estimation the breakdown of families that is driving it, not school expenditure.

Of course you are absolutely right. Poverty and wealth correlate almost perfectly with school performance everywhere in the country. It's not so much family composition as poverty. Family composition is a symptom of poverty as much as a cause. They are inextricably linked. Just by knowing the median income and poverty rate in a zip code, one can very closely estimate the school performance and school rankings.

The exceptions to that are pretty unusual. For example, the River Oaks area of Houston has a median household income of about $225,000 and the homes there look like this: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3244 ... 5988_zpid/ but the local HS is only just above average: https://www.niche.com/k12/lamar-high-school-houston-tx/

But that is because the area is so wealthy that no one sends their kids to the Houston Public Schools, they send their kids here: https://www.niche.com/k12/st-johns-school-houston-tx/ or here https://www.niche.com/k12/the-awty-inte ... ouston-tx/

So what is the answer?

First of all, school ratings are not everything people think they are. And average test scores are a poor way to rate schools because they aren't rating individual experience, they are only rating averages. The school I teach at is rated as B- on Niche. Mainly because of the poverty. 62% of students are on free/reduced lunch with is the rough estimation of poverty. What is the difference between it and the school my daughter attends across town that is A+ rated and has a 13% poverty rate? Not very much frankly at the top end. Say the top 20% of students. They are pretty similar. Lots of mostly Asian, White, and Russian immigrant kids cranking away in high performing AP classes. The difference is in the bottom 25%. At the school I teach at these are kids who are a mess. Many drift in and out as their families migrate around, often homeless or home insecure and job insecure. Many are immigrant kids with poor English language skills. Some have very sporadic attendance as they do things like stay home to look after small siblings instead of attending school, or working long hours to help with the rent. And often have family lives that are abusive or a mess.

So is one school really better than the other? According to the rankings based on standardized test scores yes. But according to the actual experience of students attending who are serious and trying to get ahead? Not really. Both schools offer very similar advanced courses, have similar facilities, and similar teachers. Your experience in say AP Chemistry or AP English is virtually the same at either school. In fact it can be more competitive and better where I teach than at the wealthier and higher rated school because it is a more self-selected group of students whereas at the wealthier school there are tons of kids in AP classes who don't really belong there or who aren't serious but their more affluent parents just put them there.

But the bigger answer, of course, is that we have to address poverty before we can really address a whole lot of other things like broken families, crime, and poor school outcomes. That is the bottom line.

[Josh]

Family composition is a symptom of poverty as much as a cause.

No, it isn’t. Family composition is entirely a symptom of the choices people make. Some people choose to be promiscuous and decide to have children out of wedlock. That creates poverty, not the other way around.