[nish2006]

Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident

Shucks, i think a kindergarten student should be capable of counting the number of Stratford schools that were rated as a "6" on that greatschools site. Actually, i think 3rd grade is when they teach the mathematics of not chasing down the market.

You've got to stop doing this too often, I can't even rep you anymore...

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by nish2006

You've got to stop doing this too often, I can't even rep you anymore...

Well said. Just because someone is not a fan of Stratford doesn't mean they should be personally attacked on this board. Childish, really.

Originally Posted by Uconn97

Realizing that this thread has gone completely off topic but....

What I would love is to find the number of people whose kids graduated from these "top schools" that people just swear are the "best" in these wonderful towns where a 2000 square foot house runs you almost a half a million....And then find out how many actually became brain surgeons or astronauts. It starts at home regardless of what great schools says. Anyone who doesn't get that it living in la la land.

Agreed as well. That said, going to a school "top" school district does have its perks for those students who actually do end up succeeding. Better schools = more opportunity (SAT prep courses, CAPT prep courses, more networking opportunities and better guidance from counselors in the schools). It seems that in many mediocre districts, some teachers and faculty alike have completely given up.

What I don't like on this board is the animosity toward people who are looking for those top districts. If they want to spend $500k + on a modest home to send their kids to those schools, who are we to judge? Schools are not the only reason most people choose to live in a desirable suburb, you know. Location and amenities equally as important to most, from what I have noticed.

[Uconn97]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Well said. Just because someone is not a fan of Stratford doesn't mean they should be personally attacked on this board. Childish, really.



Agreed as well. That said, going to a school "top" school district does have its perks for those students who actually do end up succeeding. Better schools = more opportunity (SAT prep courses, CAPT prep courses, more networking opportunities and better guidance from counselors in the schools). It seems that in many mediocre districts, some teachers and faculty alike have completely given up.

What I don't like on this board is the animosity toward people who are looking for those top districts. If they want to spend $500k + on a modest home to send their kids to those schools, who are we to judge? Schools are not the only reason most people choose to live in a desirable suburb, you know. Location and amenities equally as important to most, from what I have noticed.

I disagree (respectfully of course). I think there is a huge misconception with the term "better schools". I am hard pressed to believe that all the "good" teachers are in the top rated districts and all the "bad" ones are in the lower rated districts. That being said in my mind there aren't really better schools per se, but better student populations. Thats where the differences are.

I also think that counselors and educators in lower performing districts would be a bit insulted by your comment that they have "given up" or are not providing guidance to their students. There are teachers like this in every district, good and bad.

Finally, I don't care where anyone lives. Period. Or what they spend on their house. My issue is when someone feels the needs to make a comment like "ridgefield has one of the top rated districts in the country, according to great schools, we are a 9/10" and feels the need to bad mouth a lower performing district like stratford in this instance.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Uconn97

I disagree (respectfully of course). I think there is a huge misconception with the term "better schools". I am hard pressed to believe that all the "good" teachers are in the top rated districts and all the "bad" ones are in the lower rated districts. That being said in my mind there aren't really better schools per se, but better student populations. Thats where the differences are.

I also think that counselors and educators in lower performing districts would be a bit insulted by your comment that they have "given up" or are not providing guidance to their students. There are teachers like this in every district, good and bad.

Finally, I don't care where anyone lives. Period. Or what they spend on their house. My issue is when someone feels the needs to make a comment like "ridgefield has one of the top rated districts in the country, according to great schools, we are a 9/10" and feels the need to bad mouth a lower performing district like stratford in this instance.

Oh I agree with you that it's the student populations more than anything. It's not solely the curriculum that does it, though some are more challenging than others, of course. There ARE better schools, but they are not just in the affluent towns where they make such claims. IMO a city like Danbury has a better curriculum than neighboring (and more affluent) Bethel. Danbury offers a lot more to students. But in Danbury, you have a large non-English speaking population, which deters many for various reasons.

I think that, for any profession, the lesser paid the employee (in this case, teacher/faculty member), the lesser amount of work they will do. By no means am I grouping all into this category and using the term "given up" may have been too harsh on my end. It just seems to hold true in many instances. I graduated from a high school in an affluent town where staff is paid among the highest in the state, and they bent over backwards, stressed, and put their blood, sweat and tears into helping kids get ready for college (nearly 100% of my graduating class went off to good universities). My wife went to a district where teachers were paid about average for CT, and according to her, they did what they had to do - no above and beyond. I think that's the difference here.

Sorry for rambling, very busy day today! Hope that all makes sense.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by andthentherewere3

I suppose this is why Real Estate agents are not allowed to comment on where the "good" vs. the "bad" schools are. A rating of 5 or 6 to me would not be a school that I would consider "good", but obviously to others it is.

I believe that i described that numeric rating as being "average". The recent revelation that Chalk Hill and Jockey Hollow schools in Monroe are now on the NCLB watch list doesn't change my opinion that Monroe schools are still "good".

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I graduated from a high school in an affluent town where staff is paid among the highest in the state, and they bent over backwards, stressed, and put their blood, sweat and tears into helping kids get ready for college (nearly 100% of my graduating class went off to good universities).

What would happen if these teachers didn't bend over backwards and give their all? The wealthier the community, the lower the tolerance for failure. Failure is simply not an option in towns like New Canaan. It would be wonderful if every community had a viewpoint regarding education that emulated towns like New Canaan. Alas, we don't live on Fantasy Island.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident

What would happen if these teachers didn't bend over backwards and give their all? The wealthier the community, the lower the tolerance for failure. Failure is simply not an option in towns like New Canaan. It would be wonderful if every community had a viewpoint regarding education that emulated towns like New Canaan. Alas, we don't live on Fantasy Island.

Very true, many parents in these districts can be pretty ridiculous sometimes though. I've seen the worst of them.

That brings in another issue of class ranking - I had a very good GPA but still didn't rank high in my class. That's another thread though...

[andthentherewere3]

Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident

I believe that i described that numeric rating as being "average". The recent revelation that Chalk Hill and Jockey Hollow schools in Monroe are now on the NCLB watch list doesn't change my opinion that Monroe schools are still "good".

I won't even get into what I think of GW's NCLB. Chalk Hill on Greatschools link scored a 7, and Jockey Hollow an 8 on Greatschools, but I do see room for improvement.

[renovating]

Jockey Hollow Middlle School was put on the list because one spec. ed subgroup failed to reach the target in reading and math.

[mlassoff]

Having lived in Texas NCLB has been a boon for them to think that their schools are superior to the schools in the northeast-- because the teachers here have learned to game the system and teach only to the test... and about Jesus