suburb+schools+vs.+inner+city+schools

=
Education has always been an important factor to a persons life. but as time goes by, school systems are changing. we are lucky to have a good school with a safe, sanitary atmosphere and well educated teachers. in inner city schools, like Cleveland, they do not have what we have. suburban schools have a higher rank in the state compared to inner cuty, and with that funding is easier to come by and at larger amounts. inner city schools are worn down, many are without heating, stable walls, and good equiptment. It is hard for these schools to hire well educated teachers, and even if they could it would be very low pay. suburban schools normally have a higher graduation rate and a lower drop-out rate; most students do not miss school on a regualar basis. yet in inner city schools the gradaution rate is much lower and most students barely attened school. also, in suburbian schools crime and threats are very uncommon and do not happen offten. in an inner city school you may often see violence, a weapon and many threats.=====

__﻿Pros of inner city school__

 * =====you have the ability to have an education=====
 * =====you have the ability to have an education=====

__﻿Cons of inner city school__

 * lower-end education
 * low to no educated teachers with low pay
 * higher chance of violence


 * better chance at a good education
 * more sanitary enviornment to learn in/ better equiptment
 * =====safer (less likely for violence)=====

__Cons of suburban schools__

 * lack of integration( mostly white)
 * high risk of drugs
 * not exposed to much culture

[] __ [|http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/static/volumes/1998/Paper5.html] __ -article- []

media type="youtube" key="MqmzHoXJiYg?fs=1" height="385" width="480"media type="youtube" key="h2QBzZSoXjs?fs=1" height="385" width="480"



=Getting good teachers to inner-city schools= April 22, 2010 By [|Joanne] In [|An Effective Teacher in Every Classroom] on Education Next, Ed Trust’s Kati Haycock and Hoover economist Eric Hanushek discuss teacher quality. Do inner-city schools get the worst teachers? What can be done to get good teachers to work in low-performing schools? Poor and minority students are much more likely to be taught by less-qualified and less-effective teachers — including first-year teachers — Haycock says. > When the Tennessee Department of Education analyzed the state’s Value-Added Assessment System—which measures the impact of individual teachers on their students’ tested academic growth—it found that “low-income and minority children have the least access to the state’s most effective teachers and more access to the state’s least effective teachers.” Recently, researchers at the University of Virginia studying teaching practices and learning climate in more than 800 1st-grade classrooms were dismayed to find that lower-income and nonwhite students are much more likely than their counterparts to be placed in “lower overall quality classrooms.” > . . . An analysis of data from Los Angeles found that. . . providing top-quartile teachers rather than bottom-quartile teachers for four years in a row would be enough to completely close the achievement gap between white and African American students. But it’s hard to get highly effective teachers to work in high-need schools, unless there’s a highly effective principal who creates the conditions — order, a coherent curriculum, teacher collaboration — that make good teaching possible. Asked about bonuses for teaching in tough schools, Hanushek made a good point: > There is a simple economic axiom that bad teachers like more money as much as good teachers. Providing higher salaries will do little to improve the quality of urban teachers or teachers of disadvantaged students unless this is coupled with a clearer judgment about effectiveness. If the objective is raising achievement, there is no real substitute for observing achievement and taking actions based on it. We can’t judge teacher quality by indirect means such as certification, master’s degrees or years of experience after the first three, Hanushek says. We have to look at “objective achievement data and subjective evaluations,” such as observing teachers teach. Trying to solve the quality problem by [|moving teachers around] would be expensive and futile, argues Mike Petrilli.