Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,779 posts, read 15,790,796 times
Reputation: 10886
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelNick
From my understanding; Northside was also planned to be a new high-tech school in a poor/working class neighborhood when it was originally conceptualized. In the meantime; the Northside neighborhood itself transitioned from said working-class neighborhood with low-income families to a mix of high-end student rentals and DINK couple owners who liked the "walkability" factor. There just weren't many kids left in that neighborhood for the "neighborhood school" by the time the school was actually built.
The zone for Northside is nuts in how wide a range it is geographically. Neighborhoods north of Homestead Rd and South/East of 15-501 in the Morgan Creek area zoned for the same elementary school near downtown. Yet as you alluded; Seawell and Glenwood are both over-capacity even with that switch.
That being said; if the socioeconomic demographics of the Northside neighborhood hadn't shifted; I imagine there still would have been higher-income neighborhoods zoned for it for the sake of said diversity.
Yes and some people from Mt. Carmel Church Road and Culbreth Road also go to Northside which is crazy, too. But the truth is, there was no room for them at Scroggs, and FPG is dual language, so there really was no where else for them to go.
I have to say that I LOVE having my kids go to neighborhood schools. It is so much easier! They walk home from after school activities. If they forget something, I am right up the street to bring it. My son got into LEAP, and we enrolled him at Smith, but then he decided he didn't want to go. I will admit I was silently cheering that he made that decision as he can walk home from Culbreth after sports, and I'm not involved. I am a big fan of neighborhood schools.
Yes and some people from Mt. Carmel Church Road and Culbreth Road also go to Northside which is crazy, too. But the truth is, there was no room for them at Scroggs, and FPG is dual language, so there really was no where else for them to go.
I have to say that I LOVE having my kids go to neighborhood schools. It is so much easier! They walk home from after school activities. If they forget something, I am right up the street to bring it. My son got into LEAP, and we enrolled him at Smith, but then he decided he didn't want to go. I will admit I was silently cheering that he made that decision as he can walk home from Culbreth after sports, and I'm not involved. I am a big fan of neighborhood schools.
Yep...that's part why the premium on Southern Village is real! Someone needs to tell that to the sellers in Southbridge!
Scroggs had, by far, my favorite administrators/social worker among CHHCS elementary schools when coordinating with them in the past as well. Seemed to be the "happiest" school around overall just in my observation. I've noticed the same thing in working with teens/families who attend Carrboro High vs "the olde guard" of CHHS and East. Folks seem much happier with Carrboro HS.
So yeah; on the micro-level; school satisfaction definitely correlates to RE values; but not to the extreme level the original post concerns.
When middle-class people get upset about being re-assigned to a lower performing school, people say "all the schools are great, test scores mean nothing"..
well, people don't say that. I do say "drill down into the test scores", because that info IS available through NC Report Cards.
But those middle class people (of which I am one) typically don't want to hear anything but "I was told Davis Drive weas the bestest, so I bought in Davis Drive. Now I should get to stay at Davis Drive no matter what!"
Yes and some people from Mt. Carmel Church Road and Culbreth Road also go to Northside which is crazy, too. But the truth is, there was no room for them at Scroggs, and FPG is dual language, so there really was no where else for them to go.
I have to say that I LOVE having my kids go to neighborhood schools. It is so much easier! They walk home from after school activities. If they forget something, I am right up the street to bring it. My son got into LEAP, and we enrolled him at Smith, but then he decided he didn't want to go. I will admit I was silently cheering that he made that decision as he can walk home from Culbreth after sports, and I'm not involved. I am a big fan of neighborhood schools.
yeah this is something WCPSS doens't get, along with a person's ability to volunteer at a school. I think people understand the reassignment piece, but they continually try to send kids to schools that are 20 minutes away without traffic and bus stops. It's totally ridiculous.
well, people don't say that. I do say "drill down into the test scores", because that info IS available through NC Report Cards.
But those middle class people (of which I am one) typically don't want to hear anything but "I was told Davis Drive weas the bestest, so I bought in Davis Drive. Now I should get to stay at Davis Drive no matter what!"
People say that on this forum all the time.
WCPSS has been saying it as well. "Don't judge a school by a third party website (test scores), go visit and find out for yourself". In other words, this school is just as good as the one you're at, if you ignore test scores.
WCPSS has been saying it as well. "Don't judge a school by a third party website (test scores), go visit and find out for yourself". In other words, this school is just as good as the one you're at, if you ignore test scores.
Yep, I do say that. And I believe it to be true -- that test scores aren't the best, and not even a reliable, measure of school quality. I understand the argument that folks used testing as an avatar for quality, because that's the only info easily accessed. But tests the only measure we have because the NCGA mandated that they be the only facet of a school's performance used to assign schools a letter grade. Heck, this year they even had the opportunity to change the law to increase student growth as a component of the school letter grades, and they refused to do even that!
I think of it this way: if you take an excellent school that has fewer than 10% f&r kids, and change the student population so that it's closer to 50%, what changes? The teachers are the same, the admin is the same, the course of study is the same. In all likelihood, the school's achievement scores will go down, at least temporarily (but, the theory runs, growth for all kids should remain consistent or improve). The school's report card will take a hit, but the school will still be excellent. That's why I say that test scores aren't a reliable measure of school quality.
Yep, I do say that. And I believe it to be true -- that test scores aren't the best, and not even a reliable, measure of school quality. I understand the argument that folks used testing as an avatar for quality, because that's the only info easily accessed. But tests the only measure we have because the NCGA mandated that they be the only facet of a school's performance used to assign schools a letter grade. Heck, this year they even had the opportunity to change the law to increase student growth as a component of the school letter grades, and they refused to do even that!
I think of it this way: if you take an excellent school that has fewer than 10% f&r kids, and change the student population so that it's closer to 50%, what changes? The teachers are the same, the admin is the same, the course of study is the same. In all likelihood, the school's achievement scores will go down, at least temporarily (but, the theory runs, growth for all kids should remain consistent or improve). The school's report card will take a hit, but the school will still be excellent. That's why I say that test scores aren't a reliable measure of school quality.
Ok so if all schools are excellent, where is the "opportunity hoarding" that you claim of the middle class living in the areas with higher rated schools?
I think that's one advantage of municipality based school systems. If you want to pay an extra 5k a year in taxes (and more for a house) for what you consider to be better schools, you're welcome to do that. It gives more choice. You can pay 1M and 15k a year in taxes for higher rated schools, or you can move one or two towns over, and pay 500k and 6k a year for lower rated schools. You have that choice.
No. Only those that can afford the $1M house and $15K in property taxes can afford that choice.
The family that makes $200K a year can't make that choice.
The family that makes $100K a year can't make that choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m378
Why is it that:
When middle-class people get upset about being re-assigned to a lower performing school, people say "all the schools are great, test scores mean nothing".
But when you suggest that you just let the school zones be created naturally, people say "well that's not fair to lower-income people who can't afford the higher home prices in the higher rated school zones".
So, which is it?
.
I wouldn't suggest that test scores mean nothing. I would suggest that there isn't a linear relationship between test scores of the school on a macro level and the quality of instruction or the performance, long and short term, of an individual child. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter, but I'm saying that the minimum threshold where you really need to think about things is lower than some might guess.
Take Green Hope Elementary School and compare it to Joyner:
The kids from better backgrounds generally do just as well.
And real estate values are equally solid in both neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m378
So, which is it?
There's a minimum threshold, a balance to be struck. If you concentrate the hardest cases it becomes much more difficult for those kids from poorer neighborhoods to succeed. Will they succeed at the same rate as kids from better areas? No. But it isn't going to hurt the kids from better neighborhoods to have kids from different backgrounds as them.
And who defines "Natural" boundaries? Give me a map and it could be "natural" in about 20 different ways.
And even still, growth and districts don't guarantee anything. My grandparents and two sets of aunts/uncles/cousins/ live in a town that's only grown over the last 60 years and yet, still had to shuffle assignments; the older cousins went to a different school than the younger ones. It was simply a reflection of how many school age kids there were.
However, the way MA attempts to battle is how they fund their schools.
Basically the State Education Board goes district by district (so town or regional school district) and sets a number for what each student in that town will get in terms of funding (the number is a floor, there is no ceiling on funding). Poorer areas will get a higher "Foundational Number" while more wealthy areas will get a lower number.
So Town1 is poorer than average while Town2 is more wealthy than average.
The State says "the kids in Town1 need $11,000 a pupil because they are at a disadvantage" and "the kids in Town2 need $9,000 a pupil as they are less disadvantaged". The disparity in funding floor is the "de-segregating" mechanism. They don't bus kids around school to school to counter it, they don't say "hey in our MSA we have 40% reduced lunch, lets sprinkle those kids around to ensure an equal distribution of them throughout the area; taking those kids away form their communities" they literally say "nah you kids stay at your local school, and you kids can stay at your local school, we'll try to balance this by giving you more than them because they need less help". Why take a kid out of the their community to attempt a forced solution that isn't really part of the problem?
So Town1 raises says $3K per student through local taxes and the state, who previously said each kid is to get $11K, closes the gap through state funding; meaning the state puts $8K into the kitty.
Town2 is more wealthy and the people of that town have said "we're going to have higher property taxes to fund all the things we want in our town". So the town is required to fund $8K of the $9K Foundational budget through local taxes, which means the state throws in that $1K to close the gap, but because Town2 choose to have higher taxes on property to help further fund education, the town then throws in another $5K per student from their coffers (which Town1 could do, but chooses not to).
This is a real life example, comparing Lynn MA (poorer town) to Newton (way more wealthy town). The "segregation" isn't systematic; there is no rule keeping people from Lynn out of Newton, its a result of free market forces. The median home price in Lynn MA is $354K and the medium HH Income is $53K. The median home price in Newton is north of a million dollars and the median HH income is $119K.
.
and IMO, this is how we should do it. providing higher funds to lower-income schools, and keeping kids close to home, is the way to go, again, IMO.
7% Feds = $738
59% State = $6,224
34% Local = $3587 . (which, by the way on tax discussion, my fairly high bill would go 91% towards this allotment)
The State should set a fairly high floor, like $5,000/pupil, because we do have some very poor counties.
Then, the counties might set their own floors as some schools within the county are "wealthier" than others. Maybe in Wake that's $2,000/student.
What if the difference was applied/"given" (like a voucher) to the ED students? You might have some of the higher income schools clamoring for them to come there.
Looks like MA has 12-14 counties. We have 100. Does MA fund schools from state, county, and town funds - all 3 sources (and Fed of course)? Where are property taxes created - all 3 levels, or just county/town?
How's it done in Boston? How are schools in Boston? I can only say google - greatschools shows 3-4 good high schools and then it drops off the side of the cliff.
Yep, I do say that. And I believe it to be true -- that test scores aren't the best, and not even a reliable, measure of school quality. I understand the argument that folks used testing as an avatar for quality, because that's the only info easily accessed. But tests the only measure we have because the NCGA mandated that they be the only facet of a school's performance used to assign schools a letter grade. Heck, this year they even had the opportunity to change the law to increase student growth as a component of the school letter grades, and they refused to do even that!
I think of it this way: if you take an excellent school that has fewer than 10% f&r kids, and change the student population so that it's closer to 50%, what changes? The teachers are the same, the admin is the same, the course of study is the same. In all likelihood, the school's achievement scores will go down, at least temporarily (but, the theory runs, growth for all kids should remain consistent or improve). The school's report card will take a hit, but the school will still be excellent. That's why I say that test scores aren't a reliable measure of school quality.
you can very easily drill down to performance by demographic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
