Exactly as one would expect.
High standards yield high achievers.
Our top universities used to have high standards.
But now, meah.
Catholic schools in minority neighborhoods have done this for decades. The only difference here is the school is secular.
But one educator who watched my YouTube video on Success Academy emailed me with Criticism No. 3: "Only certain parents enter lotteries. You don't have the homeless kids, foster kids, kids whose parents are in jail."
Fair point. I asked Moskowitz about that.>/i>
"Most of our kids are from very poor families," she replied. "Yet they significantly outperform kids from suburbs ... where the average household income is eight or nine times what our families earn."
And even some homeless kids flourish at her schools, she says. "About 1 in 10 of our scholars are homeless, yet 97 percent of them passed the state math exams and 84 percent passed reading."
The fact that she takes 10% homeless isn't a complete response to the claim that only "certain parents" enter lotteries. It is entirely possible that some kids who are homeless do have better parent/parents than some of the kids in public schools. Maybe they're poor, but they may still care about education at some level.
But in a sense, that doesn't matter to the point. Because even if part of the reason she's doing so much better is that she's not getting the "worst of the worst" students, that just proves that a major part of the problem is the students themselves, and/or their parents. Not a lack of funding.
While there’s a cultural element to the US that would probably prevent US schools from being as effective, going back to the academic model that Asian and Indian schools use would likely bring scores up. Kids in those schools sit in rows of desks, generally wear uniforms, and are instructed using methods that used to be used here (rote memorization of basic arithmetic; sentence structure; penmanship; history as mostly-rote memorization and mostly national; science as presented theory supplemented with labs in more senior grades; and so on). Then, the kids are *expected* to spend at least 2-3 hours a night working on homework to help reinforce the material presented to them during the day.
And all this is done at far lower cost per pupil than any US school.
Oh, and kids who fail get held back. No grade inflation, no self-esteem “A for effort even though you got the answer wrong”.
Granted that in those countries’ school systems, class standing at certain grades dictates the level of school you move on to. Kids who don’t do as well end up getting routed into less-demanding schools, which result in them having lower chances of being accepted into the more rigorous colleges/universities, and thus they don’t get shots at the most coveted jobs. So there’s a huge pressure component, because in those societies how well you do has a far greater impact on your chances of getting a good job once you graduate from college.
But one educator who watched my YouTube video on Success Academy emailed me with Criticism No. 3: "Only certain parents enter lotteries. You don't have the homeless kids, foster kids, kids whose parents are in jail."
Fair point. I asked Moskowitz about that.
"Most of our kids are from very poor families," she replied. "Yet they significantly outperform kids from suburbs ... where the average household income is eight or nine times what our families earn."
And even some homeless kids flourish at her schools, she says. "About 1 in 10 of our scholars are homeless, yet 97 percent of them passed the state math exams and 84 percent passed reading."
The fact that she takes 10% homeless isn't a complete response to the claim that only "certain parents" enter lotteries. It is entirely possible that some kids who are homeless do have better parent/parents than some of the kids in public schools. Maybe they're poor, but they may still care about education at some level.
But in a sense, that doesn't matter to the point. Because even if part of the reason she's doing so much better is that she's not getting the "worst of the worst" students, that just proves that a major part of the problem is the students themselves, and/or their parents. Not a lack of funding.
Sure he does. He just doesn't care, because there's no payoff for him if other people are free to achieve their own goals through their own efforts.
I hope so, but that is a fairly incredible claim. #1 in a state with a population of 20 million?
vs
You didn't build that.