Wealthy school districts in Connecticut typically spent $ 1,227 more per
student than poorer ones during the 1981 - 82 school year, according to a recent state report.
Not exact matches
At 149 schools in the Bronx, less
than one in ten can read or do math at grade level, and these schools disproportionately impact
poor children of - color — 96 % of the 65,000
students in these failing schools are of - color, and 95 % come from families near or below the poverty line.
Overall,
students at richer schools did better
than those at
poorer ones.
The money that generates substantially covers you, more
than substantially covers you, for the policy of no tuition fees, no top - up fees, a reintroduction of grants for
poorer students, that we have already successfully pioneered in
one part of the UK in Scotland.
One in three high - school
students scored less
than 0.3 — which is classed as «extremely
poor».
She is
one of the
poorest kids in a
student body drawn mostly from the upper - middle class but finds friendship with an overweight girl even lower
than her on the economic ladder.
In previous work,
one of us found that Washington State's 2004 compensatory allocation formula ensured that affluent Bellevue School District, in which only 18 percent of
students qualify for free or reduced - price lunch, receives $ 1,371 per
poor student in state compensatory funds, while large urban districts received less
than half of that for each of their impoverished
students (see Figure 2).
The technology gap in public education is narrowing, with
one computer for every 5.3
students in America's
poorest districtsâ $» less
than half a
student behind the national average.
Utah is
one of only 10 states that have negative wealth - neutrality scores, meaning that, on average,
students in property -
poor districts actually receive more funding per pupil
than students living in wealthy areas.
The technology gap in public education is narrowing, with
one computer for every 5.3
students in America's
poorest districts — less
than half a
student behind the national average.
Even
students in the
poorest districts appear to do better in a competitive system, as exists in the Boston area,
than they do in areas in which
one or two districts dominate a metropolitan area, like Miami.
A
student from a
poor family is much more likely to succeed academically in a school filled mostly with middle - class
students than in
one filled mostly with lower - income
students.
Wealthy children entering kindergarten are now roughly eight months ahead of
poor students in childhood development,
one month less
than in 1998.
But should it be for wealthy
students more often
than for
poor ones?
The NCLB law gives parents the choice to withdraw their
students and send them elsewhere, rather
than address the concentration of low - performing minority
students — typically
poor ones — that did not have the resources to get find their way to more distant schools in their own districts.
Teachers and administrators who work with children from low - income families say
one reason teachers struggle to help these
students improve reading comprehension is that deficits start at such a young age: in the 1980s, the psychologists Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley found that by the time they are 4 years old, children from
poor families have heard 32 million fewer words
than children with professional parents.
And will the new systems they build be better
than the current
ones, or will they leave
poor and minority
students behind?
And you can only quickly improve exam results by changing the
students you teach, rather
than how they're taught — by expelling
poor performing
students and attracting better
ones from elsewhere — and neither of these actions help society in the long run.
Students with longer sleep times report significantly higher grades than students with poor sleeping schedules, according to one recen
Students with longer sleep times report significantly higher grades
than students with poor sleeping schedules, according to one recen
students with
poor sleeping schedules, according to
one recent paper.
Located in
one of the
poorest ZIP codes in Texas, Burleson Elementary has a population of more
than 450
students, the majority of whom are English language learners (ELL
students).
For these
students — primarily African American and Latino, but also
poor students of all backgrounds — the teachers who believe in and push them, who refuse to accept anything less
than the best from them, often make the single greatest difference between a life of hope and
one of despair.
California's
poor students performed worse on a national exam
than needy kids from all but
one other state, according to results released this week by the National Center for Education...
To achieve this vision, combined state, district, and school efforts must close significant and persistent achievement gaps, which occur when
one student group statistically outperforms another.18 However, data from international, national, and state - level sources all confirm that nonwhite, disabled,
poor, and non-English-speaking
students perform more poorly
than their peers outside of these groups.19
Ohio's «2011 - 12 value - added results show that districts, schools and teachers with large numbers of
poor students tend to have lower value - added results
than those that serve more - affluent
ones.»
The incidence of teacher absences is regressive: when schools are ranked by the fraction of
students receiving free or reduced - price lunch, schools in the
poorest quartile averaged almost
one extra sick day per teacher
than schools in the highest income quartile, and schools with persistently high rates of teacher absence were much more likely to serve low - income
than high - income
students.