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.
Definitely being "patriotic" here...sure doesn't hurt by being home to what is arguably the best public (and easily one of the biggest) high school in the state (I'm talking about Stevenson HS). AESHS is sort of like the "modern day New Trier".
To complete their research, Robert C. Pianta and Arya Ansari used a longitudinal study of a large, diverse sample of school children with the hopes of determining the extent to which attending private school could predict their achievement as well as social and personal outcomes by the age of 15. They began with data collected from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.
This data represents the culmination of a 10-site project that followed children from birth to age 15, all having common study protocol. Participants completed an annual interview complete with observations at home, in school, and in the neighborhood. In total, 1,364 families participated in the study and, on the whole, fairly represented the ethnicities and household income of the U.S. population. Pianta and Ansari took data from 1,097 of study participants to complete their own analysis.
The results of this study show that while private school students may be outperforming public school students, the difference is eliminated completely when you control for family income and parents’ level of educational achievement. Children birth through age 5 from high-income homes have educational resources that other children don’t get – conditions that are presumed to carry on through the child’s school years.
Previous to this study, academic achievement was the primary focus of studies designed to determine the efficacy of private schooling. Pianta and Ansari examined this metric but also took into account students’ attitudes and motivation, their social adjustment, and even risky behavior that can be associated with private schooling. After examining the data, they came to the conclusion that there was no conclusive evidence to suggest that, “private schools, net of family background (particularly income), are more effective for promoting student success” than public schools.
New study confirms that private schools are no better than public schools.
I've NEVER suggested that they were better. I just think that public school competition and snobbishness are the height of obnoxiousness. They have to take EVERYBODY, including your dumb child. They are almost always a reflection of the demographic profile of the student body and area rather than some sort of unique teaching intervention.
I think that the very best private institutions do have something unique about them, but whether or not they are worth it is a different question.
So.....you don’t approve of the cocept of public schools?
I don't approve of the concept of putting stupid signs in your front yard, stickers on your car, and talking up your public school like its the greatest thing ever. You nor your children had to do anything to get them in there beyond living in the right boundaries.
Your comment that Stevenson is the 'modern day New Trier' is just gross. New Trier is still around, and like Stevenson, is a massive public high school serving an affluent and pretty homogeneous suburban area. Neither are anything particularly special—the kids who do best at them could probably do well anywhere.
I don't approve of the concept of putting stupid signs in your front yard, stickers on your car, and talking up your public school like its the greatest thing ever. You nor your children had to do anything to get them in there beyond living in the right boundaries.
Your comment that Stevenson is the 'modern day New Trier' is just gross. New Trier is still around, and like Stevenson, is a massive public high school serving an affluent and pretty homogeneous suburban area. Neither are anything particularly special—the kids who do best at them could probably do well anywhere.
We are in the Stevenson district and my husband is a SHS grad...
To the bolded --- technically true, however, there are MANY parents who have sacrificed GREATLY to move into said district boundaries, in order to give (what they believe) is the best public school education possible for their children. When accomplished, there is a strong sense of pride and peace of mind. I'm not just referring to the financial sacrifices of moving into affluent areas, where taxes are insanely high (though those can be tremendous), I'm also speaking to the geographic move and how that may impact your family and extended family, at large. I'm originally from another state and have literally no relatives in Illinois. The #1 reason why we've settled in the northern suburbs of Chicago is due to schools. The public institutions in the state where I grew up cannot hold a candle to what we have here. So yes, as much as I absolutely HATE living hours upon hours away from my family, we stay and we work hard. This is coming from someone with 16 years of middle to upper class private school education... my preference was to always go public once my kids were born.
That being said, I agree about those who are OVERLY loud and obnoxious with regards to thinking that they are superior due to what schools they feed into. It's immature, annoying, and screams insecurity to me.
Finally, I just ask that you be a bit sensitive to those who had to make some very difficult decisions when looking at where to transplant their families. To insinuate that it was just a move is potentially minimizing the complexities and challenges.
ETA: There are PLENTY of private school families who shove signs into their well groomed front lawns or slap stickers on their luxury vehicles.
To the bolded --- technically true, however, there are MANY parents who have sacrificed GREATLY to move into said district boundaries, in order to give (what they believe) is the best public school education possible for their children. When accomplished, there is a strong sense of pride and peace of mind. I'm not just referring to the financial sacrifices of moving into affluent areas, where taxes are insanely high (though those can be tremendous), I'm also speaking to the geographic move and how that may impact your family and extended family, at large. I'm originally from another state and have literally no relatives in Illinois. The #1 reason why we've settled in the northern suburbs of Chicago is due to schools. The public institutions in the state where I grew up cannot hold a candle to what we have here. So yes, as much as I absolutely HATE living hours upon hours away from my family, we stay and we work hard. This is coming from someone with 16 years of middle to upper class private school education... my preference was to always go public once my kids were born.
Clue me in: What distinguishes a top-of-the-line school like Stevenson from, say, Proviso East? Or even a halfway decent one, like Palatine. Enough to upturn everything else in your life. Are school districts really worth it?
I went to a good but not top-of-the-line high school. (It has since gone down.) All in all, it still had the same problems any high school has: drugs, bullying, cliques, fights, etc. Let alone a very strong car culture that made dating impossible for any guy who didn't have a car (like yours truly ); Honda was the most popular model. Well, there were no gangs controlling the hallways, I'll give it that. But I don't know, I can't help but wonder if I'd have had a similar experience in a lower-tier high school (just not a truly awful one), like Palatine or one in Chicago proper. I mean, a high school is a high school, and kids are kids, with or without money. So what do good schools have that bad schools don't?
I'm aware that in some Sun Belt cities, "What high school did you go to?" is one of the first get-to-know-you questions people ask. But in the Chicago area, that's rarely, if ever, the case. With a possible exception of people under 24.
Last edited by MillennialUrbanist; 05-04-2019 at 08:12 AM..
...I'm not just referring to the financial sacrifices of moving into affluent areas, where taxes are insanely high (though those can be tremendous)...
Property taxes in affluent areas are pretty much universally lower than in less affluent areas in Illinois.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist
So what do good schools have that bad schools don't?
"Good schools" have virtually nothing over "bad schools" beyond more money and fewer needy students.
I went to New Trier High School. Stevenson and New Trier High Schools ofter excellent programs on top of the state curriculum, no doubt about it. However, to suggest that there is something above and beyond about the schools over schools in less affluent areas of the state is ridiculous. Much of the sterling reputations of Stevenson and New Trier have to do with confirmation bias. Both of the schools are among the very largest in the state, both having over 4,000 students. It's much more likely that you will run into an alumnus of Stevenson than it is an alumnus of Lake Forest (only 1,700 students), for example. The sheer size compared with the affluent student bodies make it a certainty that the students will be, at the very least, perceived to excel.
I don't approve of the concept of putting stupid signs in your front yard, stickers on your car, and talking up your public school like its the greatest thing ever. You nor your children had to do anything to get them in there beyond living in the right boundaries.
Your comment that Stevenson is the 'modern day New Trier' is just gross. New Trier is still around, and like Stevenson, is a massive public high school serving an affluent and pretty homogeneous suburban area. Neither are anything particularly special—the kids who do best at them could probably do well anywhere.
Stevenson is homogenous.?????? Seriously? Stenson is so diverse that it makes the United Nations seem homogenous. AESHS is one of the best examples of the better America that is on its way...a vast assortment of people whose roots come from innumerable parts of the world, a place where a “majority” mercifully does not exist. And the student body embraces this diversity...or, better still, doesn’t even think about it at all because race, ethnicity, religion form no sort of a divide
And while there is no denying of District 125’s affluence, this is by no means as dominatingly high income demographics, the Stevenson area is no New Trier Twp. Lots of it is solidly middle class..such as by what is the district’s largest ton, BuffaloGrove,
You don’t have to approve of those bragidious signs put up on school, home and bumper sticker. Nobody is going to give a rat’s ass about your approval. That said, I lament the ego driven, IM-best attitude that seems to be on display. But that doesn’tvtell m canything about mid-Lake County. Instead it tells me about how egocentric and me centere America is.
And for that, unlike you, I say BRAVO to greatvpublic high schools like Stevenson or NewcTrietvthat provide the samevpublic, tuition free excellent schools who are open to all....something that I embrace as a true positive although to be honest, there are some insufferable, snooty elitest forumers here who bemoan thec} “have to take all” equalitarian struture of our public schools.
Property taxes in affluent areas are pretty much universally lower than in less affluent areas in Illinois.
"Good schools" have virtually nothing over "bad schools" beyond more money and fewer needy students.
I went to New Trier High School. Stevenson and New Trier High Schools ofter excellent programs on top of the state curriculum, no doubt about it. However, to suggest that there is something above and beyond about the schools over schools in less affluent areas of the state is ridiculous. Much of the sterling reputations of Stevenson and New Trier have to do with confirmation bias. Both of the schools are among the very largest in the state, both having over 4,000 students. It's much more likely that you will run into an alumnus of Stevenson than it is an alumnus of Lake Forest (only 1,700 students), for example. The sheer size compared with the affluent student bodies make it a certainty that the students will be, at the very least, perceived to excel.
To a a degree, some of that special quality that Stevenson and New Trier has comes not from its size, but from the nature of one high school school districts. Having all the eggs in one basket gives a unifying asense of cohesiveness to communities that are so structured. And Stenson and New Trier are two of the very few that are one school districts. But I can see many of the same dynamics down throgh the years in other schools like them: ETHS, OPRF, H-F,etc. there is a high profile aspect to onness that one doesnz’t see in such outstanding high schools as GBN/GBS or HPHS/DHS
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.
