Which Cleveland suburb for family and nature? (Shaker Heights, Brecksville: rental, neighborhood)

[L2DB]

Originally Posted by jmv

L2DB and Andrew61 seem determined to tear down an ideal in Shaker that is hard to achieve, but worth fighting for. For what reason, I will never know.

Tear down is a bit harsh. I think Shaker Schools are above average currently (and maybe even great through 6th or 7th grade). I mean, they're clearly better than CH/UH and I'd take them over a lot of other school districts as well (i.e. on the East side, only Beachwood, Orange, Mayfield, and Solon are better, IMO).

It's comments like:

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

Actually, come to think of it, probably the only schools that are better than Shaker in NEO are private schools.

that I disagree with. The above mentioned schools are also diverse (with more Asians, iirc) and this is all just the east side.

FWIW, I find the "some students go to Ivy League schools" and "some students are National Merit Scholars" and especially "the good students don't really deal with the bad ones" all a bit... laughable? Maybe laughable is too harsh, but I can't think of something better at the moment. Regardless, they're not really persuasive. When there is diversity and all the students are good, how is that not better?

Now, if you're trading that because you find the city of Shaker Heights and the lifestyle that goes with it more appealing, then that's fine. I get that. But from purely a school only viewpoint, Shaker is good, but not great, IMO.

[jmv]

L2DB I appreciate your reasonable response and respect your opinion. I think where we fundamentally disagree is in your statement "When there is diversity and all the students are good, how is that not better?" I believe my children are gaining something valuable by being in a school environment where diversity is not just about the color of someone's skin, it is about the diversity of their life experience, their socio economic background and even their academic ability. My children are incredibly fortunate and have great opportunities and resources available to them. While I tell them every day that that privilege comes with great responsibility, I can think of no better way for them to truly understand what that means than to go to school every day with children who don't have what they have (resources, access, academic ability, family support). It builds empathy, caring and a sense of responsibility in a way that being around kids who are all the same simply cannot. I believe my children's academic experience is as rigorous as you will find anywhere, public or private. I agree that there are certainly other school districts that offer similar academic opportunities. There are none that I know of that give them as valuable an education about the world and their responsibility to make it a better place for all people than the Shaker schools. That is what sets Shaker apart. That is just my opinion, based on what I value for my kids.

[L2DB]

I agree with you about where we disagree. I suppose I put more emphasis on the negative factors of something like differences in academic ability where I don't want my kids to be held back because other students need more help on something my kids may already know. In the increasingly group-work focused education system, carrying someone that may not contribute (whether because they can't or don't want to or both) is a detriment, IMO.

Countering the emphasizing the negativity, I see less benefit in the positive. I think we (people in general) tend to be friends with, work with, etc. people that are, for the most part, similar to us (from a socio-economic perspective). And, perhaps even more importantly, there's a basic societal standard for behavior that parents (at least, good ones) will instill in their children regardless of where kids go to school and who they're exposed to. Maybe going beyond that to a true understanding is what Shaker Heights parents are going for, but I guess I think that's more idealism than that it's actually likely to happen (these are kids/teenagers, remember). As an aside, I find it interesting (in a non-judgemental way) that there's rarely any concern for kids being exposed to other kids that may be better off socio-economically than them.

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by andrew61

I like Shaker, but for me there's no way I would live there unless I had no school-age children, and I was wealthy enough to be able to afford living in one of those really grand mansions in the northern part of the suburb.

I have observed with interest that quite a number of people I've known who lived in Shaker bragged about how great the schools were, yet couldn't bring themselves to send their own children to them, opting for private schools instead. To me that is very telling.

Thanks for the anecdote. Please realize, however, that Shaker Heights has pockets of extreme wealth and families that would opt for private education no matter where they might choose to live. It's no coincidence that three of the best independent schools in the Midwest have been located in Shaker Heights for almost a century.

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by L2DB

So the best and brightest are insulated from the less fortunate socio-economically (read: minorities), but this is good because they learn to interact with them?

Yes, to some degree. But you'll still find more diversity in those advanced classes than you will in 99% of schools in Northeast Ohio. And remember there is still interaction amongst the groups during extracurricular activities and some untracked electives.

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by L2DB

Tear down is a bit harsh. I think Shaker Schools are above average currently (and maybe even great through 6th or 7th grade). I mean, they're clearly better than CH/UH and I'd take them over a lot of other school districts as well (i.e. on the East side, only Beachwood, Orange, Mayfield, and Solon are better, IMO).

And you're basing this on what exactly?

Originally Posted by L2DB

FWIW, I find the "some students go to Ivy League schools" and "some students are National Merit Scholars" and especially "the good students don't really deal with the bad ones" all a bit... laughable? Maybe laughable is too harsh, but I can't think of something better at the moment. Regardless, they're not really persuasive. When there is diversity and all the students are good, how is that not better?

What's laughable is that the American education system has a long history of exclusion to this day, and people still mistake a good filtering system for a good school/system. And yes that includes the barriers to entry that exist in places like Beachwood, Orange, Mayfield, and Solon. Shaker's barriers are internal, though they're still barriers so I won't sit here and pretend that an AP American History course is significantly more diverse at SHHS than at OHS.

[L2DB]

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

And you're basing this on what exactly?

Not insignificant diversity (i.e. diversity above averages for the country) and better test scores (in before "lol test scores") across like populations.

I.e. If poor kids at school x do better on tests than poor kids at school y and the same holds true for non-poor kids, minorities, non-minorities, and whatever other category you want to look at it, it seems safe to say that school y has some factor that causes their scores to be lower. Whether that's worse teachers, class disruptions caused by differences in populations, something in the water or something else can't be determined, LDO. Personally, I prefer to err on the side of the better test scores across like populations and minimize the variance.

[wrightflyer]

While neither good or bad IMO but just an observation, I feel one of the reasons that Shaker is diverse despite having so many wealthy families in its district is its boundaries. If it wasn't for the swath that includes Cleveland, where rentals are more common and my guess that property taxes are substantially lower because no SH services, there would be much less diversity in SHHS and schools overall. And where exactly are we drawing the line for socioeconomic diversity? Free lunches? Poverty Level? Another factor?

Questions and points that I have not seen answered or discussed in this debate. By the way, this is rather civil compared to the Cinci forum!

As an aside, personally, having gone to an excellently performing high school with many highly qualified graduates, many of which are friends that went to top universities and colleges (Ivies, Techs, highly ranked liberal arts), and many of which are from diverse backgrounds, it pays to be in the high performing classes. As someone noted earlier, having a child who learns at a slower, or even different, level could be a detriment even at the top performing public schools. I'd be interested to see a comparison of SHHS students in IB/AP classes vs. those in the middle-testing group and lower-testing group. What are their college chances? Where? How many are there? In proportion to top-performers? All students?

[L2DB]

Originally Posted by wrightflyer

While neither good or bad IMO but just an observation, I feel one of the reasons that Shaker is diverse despite having so many wealthy families in its district is its boundaries. If it wasn't for the swath that includes Cleveland, where rentals are more common and my guess that property taxes are substantially lower because no SH services, there would be much less diversity in SHHS and schools overall. And where exactly are we drawing the line for socioeconomic diversity? Free lunches? Poverty Level? Another factor?

I don't know enough about the intricacies of SH demographics to know whether or not this is true so don't take it as fact - I'm just putting it out there.

My wife is of the opinion that SH's diversity is misleading to a certain extent in that, because of what you mentioned above, it's predominantly richer white kids and poorer black kids, rather than a combination of rich/middle-class/poor populations for each race. Again, I don't know if that's actually the case.

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by L2DB

Not insignificant diversity (i.e. diversity above averages for the country) and better test scores (in before "lol test scores") across like populations.

I.e. If poor kids at school x do better on tests than poor kids at school y and the same holds true for non-poor kids, minorities, non-minorities, and whatever other category you want to look at it, it seems safe to say that school y has some factor that causes their scores to be lower. Whether that's worse teachers, class disruptions caused by differences in populations, something in the water or something else can't be determined, LDO. Personally, I prefer to err on the side of the better test scores across like populations and minimize the variance.

Oh, I understood what you're implying; I'm just not sure it's a valid process. That said, even if it were, do you have any data to reinforce your point? Or are you just assuming that the numbers will back up your belief that Beachwood is better at educating poor minorities (or wealthy whites/Asians, or whatever other socioeconomic group you want to compare) than Shaker Heights?