Pebble wrote:
...
There are very few nations with better education results. Many of those countries, Japan, China, etc, do not factor in special needs children, like we do.

...

Key findings
? Among the 34 OECD countries, the United States performed below average in mathematics in 2012 and is ranked 26th (this is the best estimate, although the rank could be between 23 and 29 due to sampling and measurement error). Performance in reading and science are both close to the OECD average. The United States ranks 17 in reading, (range of ranks: 14 to 20) and 21 in science (range of ranks: 17 to 25). There has been no significant change in these performances over time.
? Mathematics scores for the top-performer, Shanghai-China, indicate a performance that is the equivalent of over two years of formal schooling ahead of those observed in Massachusetts, itself a strong-performing U.S. state.
? While the U.S. spends more per student than most countries, this does not translate into better performance. For example, the Slovak Republic, which spends around USD 53 000 per student, performs at the same level as the United States, which spends over USD 115 000 per student.
? Just over one in four U.S. students do not reach the PISA baseline Level 2 of mathematics proficiency ? a higher-than-OECD average proportion and one that hasn?t changed since 2003. At the opposite end of the proficiency scale, the U.S. has a below-average share of top performers.
? Students in the United States have particular weaknesses in performing mathematics tasks with higher cognitive demands, such as taking real-world situations, translating them into mathematical terms, and interpreting mathematical aspects in real-world problems. An alignment study between
the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and PISA suggests that a successful implementation of the Common Core Standards would yield significant performance gains also in
PISA.
? Socio-economic background has a significant impact on student performance in the United States, with some 15% of the variation in student performance explained by this, similar to the OECD average. Although this impact has weakened over time, disadvantaged students show less engagement, drive, motivation and self-beliefs.
? Students in the U.S. are largely satisfied with their school and view teacher-student relations positively. But they do not report strong motivation towards learning mathematics: only 50% students agreed that they are interested in learning mathematics, slightly below the OECD average of 53%.

Yvonne wrote:
I know some teachers in the JC public school system. They constantly are telling me of the crime that goes on in the public schools, especially the high schools. Children are afraid to use the restrooms. If you are not in a safe environment, it will affect test scores. The crime stats in schools should be published along with test scores.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Given the relative income range of people along with population size, it absolutely should be expected that the state assist in the spending. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

In regards to which is better... the difference is negligible. It is something that absolutely must improve if you are to get more families here.

Quick research turns up the US spends the most (or at least in the top percentile world wide) per pupil as opposed to other countries; yet as a % of GDP, the US spends comparatively little compared to other countries.

I would be curious how other countries - especially those with better educational results - fund K-12 education. Could a part of the problem be the US reliance of property tax levies to fund education?

Pebble wrote:
Given the relative income range of people along with population size, it absolutely should be expected that the state assist in the spending. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

In regards to which is better... the difference is negligible. It is something that absolutely must improve if you are to get more families here.

Monroe wrote:
Just to note, those districts received supplemental funding from taxpayers outside their own towns to the tune of over $2,535,000,000. Yes, over $2.5 BILLION dollars of the cost of those children's education came from other NJ taxpayers. In 2011-2012 alone-yes, for one year.

And these were the results we got for this. Clearly, throwing more money can't solve the problems.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Given the relative income range of people along with population size, it absolutely should be expected that the state assist in the spending. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

In regards to which is better... the difference is negligible. It is something that absolutely must improve if you are to get more families here.

It's silly, of course, that it's court mandated by an activist NJ State Supreme Court, but has proven to be almost worthless in its results.

I'll repeat; 2.5 billion dollars spent just in one year on just these ten schools with such poor graduation rates. It's not the state's fault, the taxpayers either-because no amount of money will improve these numbers. I'm not going to research how much more money went towards the 21 other Abbott schools, or how many billions and billions have been wasted since 1985 when this became a court ordered mandate but the number surely is staggering.

Yes, "activist judge" also known as "Judge that rules the way you personally don't want them to rule."

The military has an expression: You are only as strong as your weakest link.

There a lot of people that can learn from that...

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Given the relative income range of people along with population size, it absolutely should be expected that the state assist in the spending. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

In regards to which is better... the difference is negligible. It is something that absolutely must improve if you are to get more families here.

It's silly, of course, that it's court mandated by an activist NJ State Supreme Court, but has proven to be almost worthless in its results.

I'll repeat; 2.5 billion dollars spent just in one year on just these ten schools with such poor graduation rates. It's not the state's fault, the taxpayers either-because no amount of money will improve these numbers. I'm not going to research how much more money went towards the 21 other Abbott schools, or how many billions and billions have been wasted since 1985 when this became a court ordered mandate but the number surely is staggering.

Pebble wrote:
Given the relative income range of people along with population size, it absolutely should be expected that the state assist in the spending. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

In regards to which is better... the difference is negligible. It is something that absolutely must improve if you are to get more families here.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
We were talking about Newark and Jersey City. I missed the bit where you decided to change topic to include top ten.

Fail.

You posted a top ten list of the worst graduation rates in NJ; my response was to the failed state aid in total among those ten.

...

dtjcview wrote:
We were talking about Newark and Jersey City. I missed the bit where you decided to change topic to include top ten.

Fail.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Just to note, those districts received supplemental funding from taxpayers outside their own towns to the tune of over $2,535,000,000. Yes, over $2.5 BILLION dollars of the cost of those children's education came from other NJ taxpayers. In 2011-2012 alone-yes, for one year.

And these were the results we got for this. Clearly, throwing more money can't solve the problems.

The grand total spent for Newark and JC combined 2011-12 was under $1.7 billion, some of which is funded by local and federal dollars. How did you arrive at $2.5 billion?

$661,261,323 - JC
$1,003,365,545 - Newark

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13 ... /mapping-school-spending/

I agree though that it appears to be money wasted.

Check the state site below, it tells you for each school the total spending, and breaks down by percentage the funding by state, Federal, and local taxes. Then just multiply. Newark is easy, round it off to a billion and the state funds them at the rate of 81.4%, so NJ taxpayers paid 814 million in support. (I'm excluding that Newark taxpayers also contribute to that sum by paying some of it themselves in income and sales taxes). So it took me about five minutes to go to each town on the list and add up that information to come up with $2.5 billion. Just in one year!

http://www.state.nj.us/education/guide/2013/district.shtml

I entered Newark City and got:
2011-12 Total Spending: $1,003,365,545

I then entered Jersey City and got:
2011-12 Total Spending: $661,261,323

That took me about 30 secs.

The original JJ comparison was between these two districts: Newark City and Jersey City...

WORST 10 SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADUATION RATES
1. TRENTON CITY? 48.6%
2. ASBURY PARK CITY? 50.7%
3. CAMDEN CITY? 53.4%
4. PERTH AMBOY CITY? 59%
5. IRVINGTON TOWNSHIP? 60.3%
6. NEW BRUNSWICK CITY? 60.7%
7. ATLANTIC CITY? 67.2%
8. JERSEY CITY? 67.5%
9. NEWARK CITY? 67.7%
10. BRIDGETON CITY? 68.4%

You were educated in NJ?

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Just to note, those districts received supplemental funding from taxpayers outside their own towns to the tune of over $2,535,000,000. Yes, over $2.5 BILLION dollars of the cost of those children's education came from other NJ taxpayers. In 2011-2012 alone-yes, for one year.

And these were the results we got for this. Clearly, throwing more money can't solve the problems.

The grand total spent for Newark and JC combined 2011-12 was under $1.7 billion, some of which is funded by local and federal dollars. How did you arrive at $2.5 billion?

$661,261,323 - JC
$1,003,365,545 - Newark

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13 ... /mapping-school-spending/

I agree though that it appears to be money wasted.

Check the state site below, it tells you for each school the total spending, and breaks down by percentage the funding by state, Federal, and local taxes. Then just multiply. Newark is easy, round it off to a billion and the state funds them at the rate of 81.4%, so NJ taxpayers paid 814 million in support. (I'm excluding that Newark taxpayers also contribute to that sum by paying some of it themselves in income and sales taxes). So it took me about five minutes to go to each town on the list and add up that information to come up with $2.5 billion. Just in one year!

http://www.state.nj.us/education/guide/2013/district.shtml

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Just to note, those districts received supplemental funding from taxpayers outside their own towns to the tune of over $2,535,000,000. Yes, over $2.5 BILLION dollars of the cost of those children's education came from other NJ taxpayers. In 2011-2012 alone-yes, for one year.

And these were the results we got for this. Clearly, throwing more money can't solve the problems.

The grand total spent for Newark and JC combined 2011-12 was under $1.7 billion, some of which is funded by local and federal dollars. How did you arrive at $2.5 billion?

$661,261,323 - JC
$1,003,365,545 - Newark

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13 ... /mapping-school-spending/

I agree though that it appears to be money wasted.

Monroe wrote:
Just to note, those districts received supplemental funding from taxpayers outside their own towns to the tune of over $2,535,000,000. Yes, over $2.5 BILLION dollars of the cost of those children's education came from other NJ taxpayers. In 2011-2012 alone-yes, for one year.

And these were the results we got for this. Clearly, throwing more money can't solve the problems.

MarkCore wrote:
The difference is basically negligible.