Another Thank heavens for Mississippi moment - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Oct 20, 2005

Another Thank heavens for Mississippi moment

Date: Oct 20, 2005

RE: Another &amp;amp;amp;quot;Thank heavens for Mississippi&amp;amp;amp;quot; moment

Date: Oct 20, 2005

RE: Another &amp;amp;quot;Thank heavens for Mississippi&amp;amp;quot; moment

Date: Oct 20, 2005

If you norm these numbers by race and income, the rankings will change. Mississippi still will not rank high, but it likely would not be last. Of course, all of this is complicated by the correlations between percentage of minorities, income level, and educational performance. Most people in the education business focus on funding as the only input that will affect the outcome. However many other issues are important such as culture, philosophy, single versus two-parent family and religion. Without changes in other aspects, each additional increase in funding will yield less and less change in education scores.

Date: Oct 20, 2005

RE: Another &amp;amp;amp;quot;Thank heavens for Mississippi&amp;amp;amp;quot; moment

Date: Oct 20, 2005

RE: Another &amp;amp;quot;Thank heavens for Mississippi&amp;amp;quot; moment

Date: Oct 20, 2005

13% in 2001 - current national average may be 11%.

Date: Oct 20, 2005

Private, not necessarily parochial.

Date: Oct 20, 2005

RE: Another &amp;amp;amp;quot;Thank heavens for Mississippi&amp;amp;amp;quot; moment

Date: Oct 20, 2005

RE: Another &amp;amp;quot;Thank heavens for Mississippi&amp;amp;quot; moment

Date: Oct 20, 2005

Pay rank & 4th grade Reading rank: 0.15729
Pay rank & 4th grade Reading rank: 0.04377
Pay rank & 8th grade Math rank: 0.15727
Pay rank & 8th grade Math rank: 0.14197

Should be:

Pay rank & 4th grade Reading rank: 0.15729
Pay rank & 8th grade Reading rank: 0.04377
Pay rank & 4th grade Math rank: 0.15727
Pay rank & 8th grade Math rank: 0.14197

Date: Oct 20, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Do private & parochial schools have to bother with the NAEP tests?

Private secondary schools seeking accreditation from Middle States do - don't know about the New England equivalent.

Date: Oct 20, 2005

The exams and data I cited in the first post in this thread are from public schools only. I don't know if private schools take the same exams, but the Clarion Ledger story made it clear that these data are from the publics.

Date: Oct 20, 2005

Cossack wrote:

. . . Most people in the education business focus on funding as the only input that will affect the outcome. However many other issues are important such as culture, philosophy, single versus two-parent family and religion. . . .

You list several very important variables: funding, culture, philosophy, family, and religion. I can understand why the education types would focus on funding; it's the variable most readily altered. Assuming that variables other than funding are more determinative of outcome, I wonder how the states with top scores have successfully manipulated them.

Date: Oct 20, 2005

"You list several very important variables: funding, culture, philosophy, family, and religion. I can understand why the education types would focus on funding; it's the variable most readily altered. Assuming that variables other than funding are more determinative of outcome, I wonder how the states with top scores have successfully manipulated them."

These factors are not subject to manipulation, at least by the state. Neither would I want the state intervening into religion or family or culture. It is up to individuals and families to create the change. Many of the trends in the US such as a large increase in single parent households, children having children, and a relaxation of the standards of behavior have a detrimental effect on the quality of education and the will to acquire an education. To the extent that the state subsidizes some of this behavior, it reduces the amount of education per dollar spent. We likely are in for many years of hand wringing about education deficiencies and demands for increased funding. Unfortunately the quality of education will increase very slowly if at all.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

RE: Another Thank heavens for Mississippi moment

Date: Oct 21, 2005

Angeline wrote:

Am I the only one who finds Cossack's reasoning ironically funny? The culture, religion, low pregnancy and marriage age, high divorce rate, and so on is to blame for Mississippi's lack of educational attainment? This a chicken and egg argument, but what do you suppose caused and perpetuates these infrastructural problems in Mississippi's culture - perhaps lack of quality education?

This is an old,false premise.Lack of personal responsibility is the culprit. No one makes these folks get pregnant ,no one makes them drop out of school.,no one makes them turn to crime.You can look on Hardy St.or any other byway in America. Jobs are available for anyone who wants to work. Birth control is available free of charge in every county in the US. This is the story of the poor. Those who remain in poverty other than the ill and disabled deserve it. Please note that I said those who REMAIN in poverty.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

Cold Hard Truth wrote:

This is the story of the poor. Those who remain in poverty other than the ill and disabled deserve it.

It sounds like you've lived a very sheltered life.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

CHT: this is only an "old" story because Mississippi has never tried to establish quality education at any time in its history. Your argument is just the very old (mid-19th century) social darwinist idea of blaming the poor for all of society's problems and for being poor in the first place. I guess MS political leaders will ride that horse until folks finally get tired of paying all this tax money (especially the poor with MS's reliance on regressive sales taxes revenue) for so little in return.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

Speaking as a conservative: it is not as easy to work your way out of poverty as many believe. Likewise, it is not as hard as others believe. But try to imagine being a married couple in your thirties with two or three small children. Both of you earn the prevailing wage around here, which is $7- $9 an hour. That's a family income of less than $30,000. For both to work, you need daycare and transportation. Priced any of that lately? Bought any school supplies? Bought a house in a "good" neighborhood? Yes, these people can have a decent life, can keep their children clean, impart sound values, and be proud of themselves. But they are not escaping poverty at this rate.
I grew up relatively poor, but there were books and music in my house. Yet without a substantial financial aid package, mostly government-funded, I would never have gone to college, and I could still be poor but decent.
Have some compassion.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

Angeline wrote:

CHT: this is only an "old" story because Mississippi has never tried to establish quality education at any time in its history. Your argument is just the very old (mid-19th century) social darwinist idea of blaming the poor for all of society's problems and for being poor in the first place. I guess MS political leaders will ride that horse until folks finally get tired of paying all this tax money (especially the poor with MS's reliance on regressive sales taxes revenue) for so little in return.

Did "MS political leaders" impregnate all the mothers with children born out of wedlock? Did these leaders force them to drop out of school? Did they insist that they use drugs on a regular basis. If you believe spending more money on education is the answer to these problems,you're wrong. We spend more on education,per capita,adjusted for inflation than anytime in history. Each one of us is responsible for our actions.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

Angeline writes the following:

"Am I the only one who finds Cossack's reasoning ironically funny? The culture, religion, low pregnancy and marriage age, high divorce rate, and so on is to blame for Mississippi's lack of educational attainment? This a chicken and egg argument, but what do you suppose caused and perpetuates these infrastructural problems in Mississippi's culture - perhaps lack of quality education?"

It is likely that many readers have views that vary from what was originally posted. However, casual empiricism supports the concept that there are more opportunities in Mississippi (and elsewhere in the U.S.) to become educated than ever before in the history of this great country. The rate of increase in financial resources for education is only weakly (very) correlated with the rate of increase in tests and in some cities inversely correlated. The reason has much to do with the nature of the act of becoming educated. It is not something that can be accomplished without the cooperation of the participants. So long as acquiring an education is a voluntary activity, we can only provide opportunities. This is an issue that differs from funding, and should be intuitively obvious to us from our experiences in the classroom. Most of us try hard to motivate our students and provide those opportunities. Some students respond and some do not.

The only alternative is some sort of force such as the military uses to train and educate quickly, a process that I would not support since it interferes with personal freedom unless the student signs up for that experience. Even in the military there are many failures since humans have free will and are not robots. If someone has solutions other than throwing more money at the education process, I would be most interested in hearing about them. Society can only benefit from an increase in the overall educational level of its citizens.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

LVN wrote:

Speaking as a conservative: it is not as easy to work your way out of poverty as many believe. Likewise, it is not as hard as others believe. But try to imagine being a married couple in your thirties with two or three small children. Both of you earn the prevailing wage around here, which is $7- $9 an hour. That's a family income of less than $30,000. For both to work, you need daycare and transportation. Priced any of that lately? Bought any school supplies? Bought a house in a "good" neighborhood? Yes, these people can have a decent life, can keep their children clean, impart sound values, and be proud of themselves. But they are not escaping poverty at this rate.
I grew up relatively poor, but there were books and music in my house. Yet without a substantial financial aid package, mostly government-funded, I would never have gone to college, and I could still be poor but decent.
Have some compassion.

Getting married is a choice.
Having children is a choice.

For those who have done both of these BEFORE attaining an education, choices have been made that illuminate priorities. Simply put, getting married, starting a family, sexual activity, etc., were priorities for 99% of the people in that category. Education was prioritized below those other, more "basic" priorities.

Opportunities abound in Mississippi. There are, as Cossack points out, more opportunities than at any point in MS history; also, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Continued hand wringing about compassion only devalues the choices that those who value education FIRST make.

As you point out, LVN, there are aid packages available, and those packages abound. For the poor, for minorities, for women, there are more opportunities to become educated than ever before. However, the young poor, young minorities, and young women must make choices that education will be their #1 priority. Above sex. Above marriage. Above drugs. Above social inertia. Even above friends and family who would hold them back.

There is no way to force people to learn. Until personal responsibility takes hold, there is nothing we can do except provide opportunities.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

LVN wrote:

Speaking as a conservative: it is not as easy to work your way out of poverty as many believe. Likewise, it is not as hard as others believe. But try to imagine being a married couple in your thirties with two or three small children. Both of you earn the prevailing wage around here, which is $7- $9 an hour. That's a family income of less than $30,000. For both to work, you need daycare and transportation. Priced any of that lately? Bought any school supplies? Bought a house in a "good" neighborhood? Yes, these people can have a decent life, can keep their children clean, impart sound values, and be proud of themselves. But they are not escaping poverty at this rate.
I grew up relatively poor, but there were books and music in my house. Yet without a substantial financial aid package, mostly government-funded, I would never have gone to college, and I could still be poor but decent.
Have some compassion.

LVN,with all due respect,you make CHT's point. Apparently you were poor,yet availed yourself of resources and made the right choices and no longer remain in poverty.If you had dropped out,used drugs,had multiple illegitimate children,etc. you would be one of the ones he is complaining about.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

"If you had dropped out,used drugs,had multiple illegitimate children,etc. you would be one of the ones he is complaining about."

Does this describe the majority of Mississippians? If not, why are such people being blamed for the lack of educational achievement among an overwhelming majority of Mississippians?

Date: Oct 21, 2005

Angeline wrote:

"If you had dropped out,used drugs,had multiple illegitimate children,etc. you would be one of the ones he is complaining about." Does this describe the majority of Mississippians? If not, why are such people being blamed for the lack of educational achievement among an overwhelming majority of Mississippians?

In a way it does. Don't forget we are being forced to teach to the lowest level and pass everyone. As SFT would say," We need to keep those numbers up because that is the basis for our funding."

Date: Oct 21, 2005

Angeline wrote:

"If you had dropped out,used drugs,had multiple illegitimate children,etc. you would be one of the ones he is complaining about."
Does this describe the majority of Mississippians? If not, why are such people being blamed for the lack of educational achievement among an overwhelming majority of Mississippians?

If those folks were dropped ,educational scores in Miss. would be among the top in the nation.They may not be a majority but they are numerous enough to greatly pull down the state's scores. They are the problem.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

G. Franklin wrote:

LVN,with all due respect,you make CHT's point. Apparently you were poor,yet availed yourself of resources and made the right choices and no longer remain in poverty.If you had dropped out,used drugs,had multiple illegitimate children,etc. you would be one of the ones he is complaining about.

All of this kind of talk just pi$$es me off enough to post (and I'm responding more to CHT and his ilk, not you, G. Franklin)

So, because of one bad decision made early in life (and we won't even go into the abortion/adoption/keep the baby debate...always a fun conundrum for those who are anti-choice yet want to blame everything on the poor), a woman is supposed to be given the old "heave-ho" and never helped at all to get out of poverty??? Where is the lesson there? "Oh, sorry, you made a bad decision one night, now you must raise this child in poverty for the rest of your life. Too bad, so sad!" Wouldn't you just rather shoot all the poor mothers instead? No, wait, then who would work at Wal-Mart, McDonald's and all of those other barely-poverty-level wage jobs that you don't want to do?

Sometimes you people scare me.

LVN, thanks for providing a balanced, rational voice on this thread. Your kind of conservatism gives me hope for true dialogue and solutions in this ever-polarized political world.

Sheesh.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

Cold Hard Truth wrote:

Those who remain in poverty other than the ill and disabled deserve it.

You are one sick person.

Date: Oct 21, 2005

statistician wrote:

If those folks were dropped ,educational scores in Miss. would be among the top in the nation.They may not be a majority but they are numerous enough to greatly pull down the state's scores. They are the problem.

To be fair, you'd have to let all the other states drop their poor students as well. Otherwise, you'd have sampling bias that would make any comparisions impossible. Of course you know that 'cause you're a "statistician".

In fact, the attitude held by statistician--that every child in Mississippi is neither capable nor entitled to a quality education--is the chief reason why Mississippi lags so far behind the rest of the nation. There simply is no political constituency for good public schools in the state among whites. Heck, it takes a super-majority of 60% to pass an education bond issue in Mississippi. It all goes back to race, and the thinly veiled comments above confirm that. The attitude "Why waste money educating blacks and poor whites" has made all Mississippians poorer.

I found Mississippi to be a very expensive place to live when I lived there. I have children that need to be educated. The local schools were on a starvation diet, funding-wise. When we moved to NC, my property taxes increased almost eight times what I was paying in Mississippi (no homestead exemption here and the property is significantly more valuable). I get a whole lot for my money here, though. I pay with joy every penny of my property tax because my children go to first-rate schools. A heck of a lot cheaper than the marginal private schools we were being forced to consider for our chidlren when we lived in Mississippi. And we get parks, too. We do miss the Hattiesburg public library--a real treasure that we don't quite have in our new home.

I don't have to worry about saving big bucks for a high dollar private university education either, because they can go to UNC-Chapel Hill, whose tuition at $3100 per year, is a thousand dollars lower than that the $4100 charged by USM. Which school do you think is the better value?