New Trier? Whats This Madness? (Chicago, Aurora: magnet schools, taxes, live)

[Anthera]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

The value of New Trier and other schools of similar nature is not that they will turn a student with an IQ of 50 into one with an IQ of 150. Much of the evidence on intelligence (see Steven Pinker - Books - The Blank Slate ) points to genetic heritage as its major determinant, so elite schooling has limited impact on intelligence if the raw material is not there to begin with (see Bush, George W). Steven Pinker talks about how parents fret about putting their kids through the best schools, subjecting them to rigorous curricular and extracurricular training when, in reality, a genius will shine whether he attends New Trier or some run down school in the boondocks.

The value of these elite schools is they enable students to establish social networks that may prove useful later in life. As the saying goes, "the value of a Harvard education is the opportunity to meet others with Harvard educations."

I agree with you, but what you are saying is so politically incorrect that I fear for your safety.

[crbcrbrgv]

Originally Posted by fredn

You'll find tons of comments on New Trier, both on these boards and on the web. It is ranked high academically. It's probably the only Highschool in the Chicago area where parents regularly drive around with stickers on their car bragging about the fact their kids go there. I'm not talking about honor roll stickers, I'm talking "NT" or "Trevian" stickers as if it were some College (which some argue it is). You may find some folks have a religous-like fervor for the institution. I thought it was a little overrated, but I'm just a jaded guy . For those of you who currently live in the district, I mean no offense to you. I'm sure your children will get a wonderful education.

Apparently, you've never been to Naperville I live in Houston now and would like to tell you all something very ironic. The latest US News blah blah blah report had all the top Houston area schools ranked much higher than all the top Chicago area schools. Sticker madness runs kind of rampant around here for those schools also. And as for George Bush having low intelligence? He may not be a rocket scientist, but stupid people don't get 1240 on the SAT.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

Steven Pinker talks about how parents fret about putting their kids through the best schools, subjecting them to rigorous curricular and extracurricular training when, in reality, a genius will shine whether he attends New Trier or some run down school in the boondocks.

Genius doesn't exist in a vacuum. Highly intelligent students need rigor and challenge to hone their innate abilities.

A Nation at Risk warned of underachievement among those who should be the most accomplished students in our schools...

"Over half the population of gifted students do not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school."

...and a college professor's in-depth investigation into the causes of the long-term SAT score declines (The Other Crisis in American Education) has found that the biggest declines have been among the brightest students and could be traced to a decline in academic rigor and the movement towards mixed-ability classes. (These findings were reported before the SAT was recentered in 1995 to adjust for persistently declining scores).

"While students in the bottom quartile have shown slow but steady improvement since the 1960s, average test scores have nonetheless gone down, primarily because of the performance of those in the top quartile. This "highest cohort of achievers," Rudman writes, has shown "the greatest declines across a variety of subjects as well as across age-level groups." Analysts have also found "a substantial drop among those children in the middle range of achievement," he continues, "but less loss and some modest gains at the lower levels." In other words, our brightest youngsters, those most likely to be headed for selective colleges, have suffered the most dramatic setbacks over the past two decades--a fact with grave implications for our ability to compete with other nations in the future."

The reality is that the quality and rigor of the education provided by various Chicago suburban public school districts varies widely.

Parents do need to pay attention to the quality of their children's schools.

[hsw]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

The value of New Trier and other schools of similar nature is not that they will turn a student with an IQ of 50 into one with an IQ of 150. Much of the evidence on intelligence (see Steven Pinker - Books - The Blank Slate ) points to genetic heritage as its major determinant, so elite schooling has limited impact on intelligence if the raw material is not there to begin with (see Bush, George W). Steven Pinker talks about how parents fret about putting their kids through the best schools, subjecting them to rigorous curricular and extracurricular training when, in reality, a genius will shine whether he attends New Trier or some run down school in the boondocks.

The value of these elite schools is they enable students to establish social networks that may prove useful later in life. As the saying goes, "the value of a Harvard education is the opportunity to meet others with Harvard educations."

Well said....

Indeed, any HS is a fairly trivial part of one's life/career success...

Great ex. is Wharton undergrad, which self-selects kids who aspire to careers in finance....most of the summa c.l. Finance majors at Wharton finish undergrad in 2 to 3 yrs, not 4yrs; many of the top grads are from mediocre public HS, not the allegedly "top" HS....during summers, their "vocational" educ allows summer internships at NYC investment banks (unlike many of their lib arts pals)....and after one arrives at Goldman or some hedge fund post-graduation, the Wharton summa credentials which helped gain entry are of no use in determining speed/slope of one's career track....those who rapidly rise to "partner" status at a major hedge fund by <30yo are not determined by which school/what grades, but by how much money one makes for firm and/or its investors....

Would argue industries like tech/finance (esp at the upper tiers) are fairly Darwinian....and would argue many of the so-called "top" HS/lib arts colleges actually try to force a culture and behavior pattern that most high-achievers need to "delearn" if want to succeed on any high-powered hedge fund trading desk or leading tech co. engineering team.....

Many become titans in these businesses by <30yo; many attended schools like Wharton/Stanford/Harvard; many achieved top grades in difficult quant majors.....but many exs. exist of titans who went to crappy undergrads (e.g., the Google co-founders; prob couldn't gain admission to a respectable college from HS, but did well enough in college to gain admission to Stanford's graduate CompSci pgm) or were dropouts from some college/some Stanford PhD program (like Gates/Jobs/Ellison/Brin/Page, etc)....

[Pegs56]

One of the best schools is Elgin Academy (now pre-school through grade 12). You need more than a few piasters to send your kids (and unless you're near, it's a heckuva commute), but 100% of their graduates go on to 4 year colleges (yes, including Ivy League). Not too shabby.

btw, crbcrbrgv, I don't know where in Houston you are (I'm in Cy-Fair area), but I don't recall hearing of any Houston area school district scoring higher than anyplace except maybe Mexico. I'd really love to know which districts are referenced? I'm assuming not HISD, where it rains in the classrooms...

[cdc3217]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Genius doesn't exist in a vacuum. Highly intelligent students need rigor and challenge to hone their innate abilities.

A Nation at Risk warned of underachievement among those who should be the most accomplished students in our schools...

"Over half the population of gifted students do not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school."

...and a college professor's in-depth investigation into the causes of the long-term SAT score declines (The Other Crisis in American Education) has found that the biggest declines have been among the brightest students and could be traced to a decline in academic rigor and the movement towards mixed-ability classes. (These findings were reported before the SAT was recentered in 1995 to adjust for persistently declining scores).

"While students in the bottom quartile have shown slow but steady improvement since the 1960s, average test scores have nonetheless gone down, primarily because of the performance of those in the top quartile. This "highest cohort of achievers," Rudman writes, has shown "the greatest declines across a variety of subjects as well as across age-level groups." Analysts have also found "a substantial drop among those children in the middle range of achievement," he continues, "but less loss and some modest gains at the lower levels." In other words, our brightest youngsters, those most likely to be headed for selective colleges, have suffered the most dramatic setbacks over the past two decades--a fact with grave implications for our ability to compete with other nations in the future."

The reality is that the quality and rigor of the education provided by various Chicago suburban public school districts varies widely.

Parents do need to pay attention to the quality of their children's schools.

The puzzle I'm trying to solve is this:

Are smart kids better served by having a mediocre formal education, but parents with the resources (either time or $$) to supplement with cultural trips, music lessons, targeted camps and all the other trimmings,

OR....

by having a very successful, well-regarded formal education, but residing in a household with less remaining resources for extracurricular stuff, due to housing costs or private school costs.

[crbcrbrgv]

Originally Posted by Pegs56

One of the best schools is Elgin Academy (now pre-school through grade 12). You need more than a few piasters to send your kids (and unless you're near, it's a heckuva commute), but 100% of their graduates go on to 4 year colleges (yes, including Ivy League). Not too shabby.

btw, crbcrbrgv, I don't know where in Houston you are (I'm in Cy-Fair area), but I don't recall hearing of any Houston area school district scoring higher than anyplace except maybe Mexico. I'd really love to know which districts are referenced? I'm assuming not HISD, where it rains in the classrooms...

Schools such as Clements and Cinco Ranch were ranked higher than their New Trier/Hinsdale counterparts. That is what I was referring to. And Houston area charter schools are superior to Chicago area charter schools. You greatly underestimate Houston area schools. Even Houston ISD had Bellaire High, which ranked higher than both Hinsdale Central and New Trier.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by cdc3217

The puzzle I'm trying to solve is this:

Are smart kids better served by having a mediocre formal education, but parents with the resources (either time or $$) to supplement with cultural trips, music lessons, targeted camps and all the other trimmings,

OR....

by having a very successful, well-regarded formal education, but residing in a household with less remaining resources for extracurricular stuff, due to housing costs or private school costs.

Both would be ideal.

If it had to be one or the other, the highly rigorous and challenging education is the most important. Extracurriculars (cultural trips, music lessons, targeted camps, etc.) are the icing on the cake of a strong academic foundation - nice to have as extras.

We can clearly see the damage that has been done by decades of educators' general belief that bright students can overcome an education aimed at or near the average and/or below average level. SAT scores sank so low that the SAT had to be recentered for the first time since its inception. And an international assessment of math problem-solving skills of 15-year-olds in 2004, along with several more recent studies, found that the United States had the fewest top performers and the largest percentage of low performers compared with other industrialized nations. By the time U.S. students reach 12th grade, they are near the bottom or dead last compared with international competition.

The U.S. is also the only country in which, according to the results of international comparisons, the longer a student stays in school K-12, the lower their comparative academic achievement level drops. U.S. fourth-graders perform around the average, middle school students worse, and high school students are at or near the bottom - even though U.S. enrollment percentages are lower than those of most of the other participating countries.

[cdc3217]

LOL. Yes, both would be ideal.

My personal sense is that the extracurricular is a little more substantial in its value than you would argue, but let me follow you along here...

If what you're saying is that most schools are not doing a good job - then how do we identify the truly effective & successful schools? I do think test scores are helpful, but its all relative to Illinois' standards, so Illinois' really great is = another state's decent?

So is it just a game of the lesser of the evils? And if that's the case, do you really advocate that families hyperextend themselves in order to provide the least bad education to their child?

Of course I understand we should advocate for stronger curriculum and better teaching etc. etc, but if I have more time to do that in a lower performing school because I don't have to work so many hours to pay the mortgage, vs less time to be involved in a realtively high-performing classroom...is that higher testing classroom necessarily the best choice?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by cdc3217

LOL. Yes, both would be ideal.

My personal sense is that the extracurricular is a little more substantial in its value than you would argue, but let me follow you along here...

If what you're saying is that most schools are not doing a good job - then how do we identify the truly effective & successful schools? I do think test scores are helpful, but its all relative to Illinois' standards, so Illinois' really great is = another state's decent?

Looking at ACT College/Work readiness percentages will give a general idea of the quality of a school district (and its feeder district/s). The ACT and the Readiness Benchmarks are nationally normed, and so not relative to Illinois' low standards.

So is it just a game of the lesser of the evils?

If resources are limited, then yes. Music lessons and camp do not make up for a deficient academic education.

And if that's the case, do you really advocate that families hyperextend themselves in order to provide the least bad education to their child?

Of course I understand we should advocate for stronger curriculum and better teaching etc. etc, but if I have more time to do that in a lower performing school because I don't have to work so many hours to pay the mortgage, vs less time to be involved in a realtively high-performing classroom...is that higher testing classroom necessarily the best choice?

Hyperextending is not always necessary. There isn't a direct correlation between housing costs and school district educational quality; the Daily Herald College/Work Readiness comparison chart shows that. Furthermore, in regards to advocacy, some school districts have a more realistic conception of their actual performance versus their potential for higher performance than others and are much more responsive to parent/community concerns about educational quality (or lack thereof) than others, which also may not directly correlate to a community's housing costs.

There are options out there. Can everyone go to NT or Stevenson? No. But families can choose from some other public school districts that are performing just slightly below NT's and Stevenson's level but significantly above the suburban average and still have their children receive what would be considered a fairly rigorous education for the Chicago suburban area.