California's Top Public High Schools(900+ API) (San Jose, San Francisco: credit, houses, neighborhood)

[18Montclair]

Public High Schools with an API(Academic Performance Index) of 900+

Southern California
Gretchen Whitney(ABC Unified) 985
Oxford(Anaheim Union) 982
California Academy of Math & Science( Long Beach Unified) 962
San Marino(San Marino Unified) 921
Troy(Fullerton Joint Union) 917

Northern California
Lowell(San Francisco Unified) 951
Mission San Jose(Fremont Unified) 931
Saratoga(Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint) 928
Monta Vista(Fremont Union) 924
Lynbrook(Fremont Union) 920
Miramonte(Acalanes Union) 916
Willam & Marion Ghidotti(Nevada Joint) 913
Piedmont( Piedmont Unified) 912
Campolindo(Acalanes Union) 909
Henry Gunn(Palo Alto Unified) 904
Palo Alto(Palo Alto Unified) 900

Base API Report for 2009 - Year 2009 (CA Dept of Education) (http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel77.asp#taba - broken link)

[Sandpointian]

This list is laughable as a list of "California's Top Public Schools"

This is a list of (a) public schools in wealthy areas, (b) public schools in areas with exceptionally well-educated areas, (c) selective public schools, or (d) magnet schools.

Once we contol for these variables, how good are these schools as transforming high quality inputs into even better output? API data does not answer this question. Moreover, qith controls in place, I think you'll find the actual value added of these schools quite mediocre.

The lesson from observing the list of these high API schools is that wealth and high education gives one the right to be educated with people from the same background and away from the messy heterogeneity of the general public.

"Public" only in a sense that Eton is public.
S.

[cobmw]

I'll second what Sandpointian says. Oxford for example is not available to the average family. First you must live in the Anaheim school district in order to apply. Then your kid must compete on academic tests for the few limited spots. The winners of this competition are mostly asian kids who have an amazing and far above average work ethic. You kid hasn't got a chance.

Why can't the success of some of these elite, unreachable schools be duplicated elsewhere? Encouraging charter schools would achieve this. But you already know the answer (or you should). It's because the teacher's union pays off the Sacramento politicians to keep charter schools out of California. The teacher's union is the largest campaign contributor to the Democrats who have made California the place it is.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by cobmw

I'll second what Sandpointian says. Oxford for example is not available to the average family. First you must live in the Anaheim school district in order to apply.

Anaheim is not rich.

Then your kid must compete on academic tests for the few limited spots.

What's wrong with that.

The winners of this competition are mostly asian kids who have an amazing and far above average work ethic.

So?

You kid hasn't got a chance.

Whose fault is that?

Encouraging charter schools would achieve this.

Im still not completely sold on charter schools but many of Oakland's charter schools score in the 900s as well so I guess there might be something there.

The teacher's union is the largest campaign contributor to the Democrats who have made California the place it is.

California is one of the most, if not the most, dynamic state in the union. We are the envy of the world.

Thank You Democrats.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by Sandpointian

This list is laughable as a list of "California's Top Public Schools"

This is a list of (a) public schools in wealthy areas, (b) public schools in areas with exceptionally well-educated areas, (c) selective public schools, or (d) magnet schools.

Once we contol for these variables, how good are these schools as transforming high quality inputs into even better output? API data does not answer this question. Moreover, qith controls in place, I think you'll find the actual value added of these schools quite mediocre.

The lesson from observing the list of these high API schools is that wealth and high education gives one the right to be educated with people from the same background and away from the messy heterogeneity of the general public.

"Public" only in a sense that Eton is public.
S.

That's true for most of the list, but I hardly think of Grass Valley as a tony enclave that only the rich and famous/ruthless have access to. Also, while SF's Lowell High is physically in a snooty neighborhood, anyone in the city can get in by examination. (I have no personal knowledge of whether the wealthy can grease the gears a bit. I suspect if they're that rich, they can afford an exceptional private school.)

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by cobmw

Why can't the success of some of these elite, unreachable schools be duplicated elsewhere? Encouraging charter schools would achieve this. But you already know the answer (or you should). It's because the teacher's union pays off the Sacramento politicians to keep charter schools out of California. The teacher's union is the largest campaign contributor to the Democrats who have made California the place it is.

Because many of these schools are test in, and charter doesn't mean the students get smarter, unless your charter school kicks the stupid kids to the curb. The true great public schools, that are for everyone, rank in the 800s and such because they aren't test in and aren't charter so they have to accept everyone in their boundary. Los Alamitos, Long Beach Poly, University, Wilson, Cerritos, etc

[MisterDuke]

Praising charter schools for their success is like giving credit to the coaches for the successes of an all-star team. If you picked the most talented players, it doesn't matter how good or how lousy the coaches are.

The problem with schools is that they try to teach everyone the same set of knowledge, whether they are headed for Harvard or the parking lot of Home Depot. We need to cut the charade. When a kid gets to age 7, give them some tests, consult with the parents and put them on a track with others of the same ability and aspiration. Separate the college-bound kids from the ones that will end up in manual labor and the service industry.

[MidtownSacto]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

Also, while SF's Lowell High is physically in a snooty neighborhood, anyone in the city can get in by examination.

How is Lakeshore snooty? It's mostly middle class families living in typical western San Francisco bungalow houses. You sure you're not confusing it with St. Francis Wood or something?

Originally Posted by Sandpointian

Once we contol for these variables, how good are these schools as transforming high quality inputs into even better output? API data does not answer this question. Moreover, qith controls in place, I think you'll find the actual value added of these schools quite mediocre.

You can see what colleges people go to from these schools on the California Pathways website. Here's Lowell as an example:

California Postsecondary Education Commission - Freshmen Pathway Charts

[clongirl]

I just want to add (at least for the Northern Cal schools) that their "excellence" in most of these cases is passed down through extra funding via parents and community donations, high parental standards, and in most cases, a large variety of "AP" classes (higher level worth college credits). Also, wealthy areas tend to have educated parents that value good schools/education. My children are only in elementary/middle schools now, but most parents pay out of pocket for extra art/science/music etc so they are already ahead of the curve in these areas.

My child will actually be attending one of these schools and there is no test involved (Lowell is the exception as far as I know). Several Olympians have also graduated from these schools so I'm guessing that the sport facilities and programs are also heavily funded by parents/community/business sponsors.

Is any of this fair for the public schools in lower income areas? Absolutely not. It would be great if all public schools had the same chance to be good schools. But sadly, it's just the way it is.. parents that donate and care a great deal about education = better funded schools and more opportunity for their children.

I also want to add that Lowell High is not in a "snooty" area, Children from all over San Francisco (even from lower socioeconomic areas) have the option to apply and take the test entrance exam/write the essay etc. The standard have always been exceptionally very high and even the parents are required to write an essay of why their child should be accepted. One of my friend's children was recently not accepted even though her grades were outstanding.

[Steve97415]

Originally Posted by MisterDuke

When a kid gets to age 7, give them some tests, consult with the parents and put them on a track with others of the same ability and aspiration. Separate the college-bound kids from the ones that will end up in manual labor and the service industry.

That's known as "ability grouping" or "tracking." It's highly controversial and illegal in many cases. Many people think that it makes intuitive sense, but there's no good evidence that it's good for education and serves the broad public interest. Even though the intent may be to provide stimulating instruction at the proper level of readiness, the effect has too often been one of re-segregating socioeconomic classes.