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.
The RATINGS were pulled, which again is something that I specifically stated.
Why do some public schools not have GreatSchools Ratings?
If a public school does not have GreatSchools Ratings, there were no test scores reported for that school, results were incomplete or there were not enough results available across all schools in the state to make a valid comparison.
A school like Sachem HS is considered "mediocre" by LI standards. by US standards, it is a fairly high level performer. If you live in the (quite large and affordable) geographic area that this district covers, you go to that school, no questions asked.
Same here, funny how that works. But what makes Sachem mediocre by LI standards? The district has a Great Schools rating of 8 out of 10 which sound a bit over average to me and my math skills. Seriously, what are you basing your opinions on?
You may want to look at this starting on page six. 2009 Long Island Index
Quote:
Originally Posted by dman72
You want to compare it to a magnet school that leaves out 90% of the students in a given area. Therefore, your IT and Engineering schools are irrelevant to any comparison to LI schools. Unless you went to Sachem's stats and weeded out the bottom 90% of students.
The magnet schools here don't leave out 90% of the students in a given area as the magnet schools are part of the regular schools. The students who go to the magnet schools walk the same halls, go to the same football games, eat in the same cafeterias and sit in the same AP classes as the local kids. One of the ideas of the magnet schools is to invest in schools that don't have the benefit of patronage from affluent parents.
You want to compare it to a magnet school that leaves out 90% of the students in a given area. Therefore, your IT and Engineering schools are irrelevant to any comparison to LI schools. Unless you went to Sachem's stats and weeded out the bottom 90% of students.
Agreed, this is like when people obsess over the "Top Schools" lists that use AP test scores as their only criteria....thats great for kids who make it into AP classes, but what about the ~80%+ of the student body (on average) not enrolled in AP courses? It says nothing about the district as a whole, just like a magnet school, whether it's located in the same building or not, says nothing other than "there are a handful of really intelligent kids in this district" - which could be said about even the absolute worst districts anywhere you go. I think it's hilarious that so many people who post on here are soooo convinced their children - who are often yet to be born - will be eligible for gifted programs, AP, magnet schools, etc. and are willing to pay stupid amounts of money to live in a place that is realistically only marginally better than the so called "mediocre" districts on LI. I don't have kids yet but if I did I wouldn't hesitate to send them to basically any district on LI, magnet schools be damned. We've got less than 15 truly awful school districts, and I believe those places are only awful because of the environment - not the quality of the staff.
I've got nothing against magnet schools, they obviously work well in places like NYC....but I think we've got something much better on LI. I am a firm believer in public education and parity as a fundamental towards equal opportunities. We've achieved this on LI except at the very bottom, and that's a hell of a lot more than most parts of the country can say. Does it cost a lot? Yes. Does it cost too much? Yes....it's likely always going to, but I would rather pay the price than destroy something that has been overwhelmingly successful and start from scratch. Privatization doesn't jive with me when it comes to education and in many ways I think private schools are a joke that only get by on name alone, not results. I would never send my kids to one...
OK, I've got several problems with this article....though I was surprised at the disparity between spending in wealthy and poor districts. I've always thought they were fairly similar across the board - however at the same time, I also find it hard to believe that the poorer districts are failing to succeed because $18 grand to educate one kid just isn't enough
For instance, lets look at the comparison of Roosevelt and Uniondale schools straight from the NYT article...
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
Yet taxes are often highest in beleaguered districts because of large enrollments and lower property values. With little commercial property in Roosevelt, for example, homeowners pay 90 percent of school taxes. In adjacent Uniondale, with a big chunk of the Roosevelt Field shopping mall, residents shoulder only 29 percent of their district’s taxes.
The author is citing Uniondale as an example of a district reaping the benefits of an enormous commercial tax base and higher spending per student.....yet education-wise, Uniondale schools perform only slightly better than Roosevelt! The failure of LI's poorer districts aren't rooted in financial woes, they're rooted in being located within areas that were targets of racial steering and white flight during the early 60s and as such have suffered through decades of crime, generational poverty, corruption, sinking or stagnant property values, disinterested local government, poorly organized community groups, social stigmas, drug addiction and a generally bleak outlook and indifference towards education fostered in these communities' children from an early age.
Yes, LI is guilty of being a xenophobic, subtly racist holdover - however not every single minority community is a disaster. Areas that have become diverse within the last 15-20 years have fared very well academically. Valley Stream, Elmont, Baldwin, Hicksville, Huntington/South Huntington, etc. - despite opinions to the contrary - have continually produced excellent results as their students became darker. A lot of people look at what happened to all the large American cities (NYC in particular) during integration and the civil rights movement and think that's still what happens today, but it isn't. There were a myriad of factors during that era that conspired to totally eff up schools in minority communities, but nowadays as long as the money is there it's entirely possible (and the norm) to maintain the same QOL in transitioning areas, even though most white Long Islanders erroneously think that places like Valley Stream are on the cusp of becoming Bed-Stuy or the South Bronx circa 1977. When I graduated high school in 2001 (Levittown) there were maybe 3 black kids in the entire school.....but most districts in Nassau have become at least somewhat diverse in the last decade. Look at the results, what happened 30-40 years ago isn't going to repeat itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
Though wealthy districts spend the most on education, they yield about the same academic performance as midrange districts, according to test scores.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make in my last post, and I don't see how it's a bad thing. The article is, incorrectly, taking a "glass half empty" stance and implying that our "top" districts are only marginally better than those in the middle, and as such aren't getting their money's worth. Again - look at the results, how is this a negative? We have some of the most successful schools and students in the country. Our "top" districts really are outstanding, and the vast majority of those in the middle are nearly just as good!
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
“Long Island has resisted tinkering with its educational system,” the report said. “Over the years, proposals to create more opportunities for students, consolidate districts and build magnet schools have gone nowhere. Yet maintaining the status quo will not work either — it is both too expensive to sustain and not delivering the necessary outcomes for the region.”
Give me a break. It seems lately that any discussion of LI's future is bound to incorporate all sorts of far-fetched, fatalistic hyperbole. If it was too expensive to sustain, we would have people moving off the island in droves. Our population hasn't grown much at all in 50 years, but there hasn't been this mass exodus so many have been predicting for as long as I can remember. Our taxes are too high and the schools are the biggest part of it, I think everyone can agree on that - but consolidation isn't a necessity and magnet schools won't effect that in any way. We desperately need some budget reform in our schools. Consolidating administrative levels and purchasing (like the article mentions) makes sense to me, but county-wide districts don't at all. Not when we have been so successful academically. "Throwing the baby out with the water" like dman mentioned.
The crux of this article is that there isn't a whole lot of equality between the poor districts and wealthy districts, the "tale of two cities" angle. It's conveniently failing to mention that there are only about 15 "poor" districts out of 126 - and like I mentioned earlier, those poor districts are failing because of social elements they have yet to overcome from 40 years ago. Does it suck for people living in those areas? Yeah, of course....but that doesn't effect over 90%+ of Long Islanders with school-age kids. People pay big money to live here because it's an environment that fosters competition, motivation, vast opportunities for cultural exposure and legitimate post-graduate opportunities for it's public school students. A lot of folks gripe about taxes, but when push comes to shove those same people aren't going to bet the farm on saving a few bucks every year and giving some kids from Wyandanch a little hope by disintegrating their superb yet money devouring local school district.
What's also interesting is that the "poor" districts on Long island are still relatively good in comparison to many areas of the country. I just saw that Uniondale graduates 83% of it kids. If that was a "poor" district somewhere else, that number would probably be lower. https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb-rc...0202030010.pdf
try this website
its based on the standard tests giving every year
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.
