Are LAUSD as bad a people say they are let alone any better than private schools? (Woodland: low income, rent)

[toben67]

I see a lot of people here saying how LAUSD schools are bad except for palisades charter and you should send your kids to private school, yet I think I disagree. Using the neighborhood Sherman Oaks, for example, if we are talking high school the public schools perform almost the same as the private schools- assuming you are not talking about the elite expensive ones such as Harvard-Westlake and The Buckley School.

Look at the school profile for Notre Dame High School,a private school in Sherman Oaks, and you will see the average ACT is a 25.5 and the average SAT is a 1210. Compared that to some of the local public schoolsNorth Hollywood Senior High and Van Nuys Senior High which have average ACT scores of 25 there not much of a difference academically. A child could succeed in either one of these schools public or private. The only exception I found was Ulysses S. Grant high school which is quite low performing.

After doing this research I don't think private schools are worth it unless you have money to shell for the really expensive schools such as Harvard-Westlake, Buckley, Maymount, Brentwood, Campbell, etc. Perhaps my standards are lower than most of you as I don't believe you need to go to a competitive charter school or a fancy private school to succeed. I don't see anything really wrong with most LAUSD schools. Can you prove me wrong though?

I also just found out that the AP pass rate is 10% high at Van Nuys senior high than it is at Notre Dame.

[SoCal_Native]

LAUSD SCHOOLS are fine, the problem is 80%+ of its students are extremely low functioning and ESL.
LAUSD schools are about the same as in any high performing district: Same $/student, same class size (in fact, majority black or Latino schools get class size relief), same number of labs and computers, same amount of athletic and performing arts facilities.
The students in LAUSD are high truancy and high drop out. Most of their parents are also low functioning, agrarian, low education, low income. Add in high single parent and high crime and it is no surprise the LAUSD kids' school performance is so low.

Originally Posted by toben67

Can you prove me wrong though?

If you live in a neighborhood with a school loaded with low performing students, your kid's peers, it probably is better to go private. If you only have one kid, even more reason.
If you have many kids, better to buy a home in a neighborhood loaded with high IQ parents and kids, the kids being good peers for your kid.

It's not the school. It's the demographics.

[toben67]

Originally Posted by SoCal_Native

It's not the school. It's the demographics.

Even though the demographics are low income Hispanics, that doesn't make the school worse than one comprised of educated whites if perform the same academically such as the same ACT scores.

[timtemtym]

Originally Posted by SoCal_Native

LAUSD SCHOOLS are fine, the problem is 80%+ of its students are extremely low functioning and ESL.
LAUSD schools are about the same as in any high performing district: Same $/student, same class size (in fact, majority black or Latino schools get class size relief), same number of labs and computers, same amount of athletic and performing arts facilities.
The students in LAUSD are high truancy and high drop out. Most of their parents are also low functioning, agrarian, low education, low income. Add in high single parent and high crime and it is no surprise the LAUSD kids' school performance is so low.

If you live in a neighborhood with a school loaded with low performing students, your kid's peers, it probably is better to go private. If you only have one kid, even more reason.
If you have many kids, better to buy a home in a neighborhood loaded with high IQ parents and kids, the kids being good peers for your kid.

It's not the school. It's the demographics.

I cannot agree with this enough! In high income areas, parents are all over the school and demand the best. low-effort teachers avoid those schools like the plague. Parents would hound them and complain to the principal and the board until that teacher left. Even the principals typically have higher degrees/experience/achievement. Most of the schools out in the west valley even renamed themselves to add the word charter back when charter schools were the hip new thing.

In lower income areas where parents are either working 24/7 to pay the rent or not working at all and completely tuned out, low-effort teachers can stick around forever.

You will not find a failing school in Woodland Hills/Tarzana/Encino/Porter Ranch/Sherman Oaks/etc... or in the city west of LA Cienega/north of Olympic. Those parents show up with attorneys and advocates. Their PTAs raise tons of money and fund extra programs, and they harass bad teachers quiet ruthlessly. I've known a few wealthy school refugee teachers and almost all of them scattered to lower-income areas or quit teaching. Some weren't even that bad, they just didn't like putting on a big show or having a pinterest-worthy classroom.

LAUSD is just too big to really have any uniformity in its schools or programs. The entire central office could disappear and the district would continue as it is. There is a huge waste of upper management that does absolutely nothing of importance to the daily function of schools.

[quixotic59]

One of the dirty little secrets about LA's private schools is that many of the teachers are not fully certified. Private schools prefer to hire younger teachers that cost less. They claim it's because they want to "mold" the teachers according to their methods. This is BS since the turnover is pretty high in these private schools.
The LAUSD teachers are required to be fully certified and possess a greater skill set and ability to handle a more diverse range of learning abilities.
Private schools do better because their students tend to come from more secure and higher socioeconomic level homes. There is plenty of money for tutors and prep programs (ironic when you are already paying for your child's education).
If the private schools perform "better" it's because their students would perform better anywhere.
As is true in almost all large urban school systems, the bureaucracy stumbles over itself and schools have to accept students of all levels.
The few teachers I have met that were able to go from public to private (not an easy move) all agreed that they had to work much less in the private schools. A majority of their time is spent pandering to parents so they feel good about laying out all that money.

[SoCal_Native]

Originally Posted by toben67

Even though the demographics are low income Hispanics, that doesn't make the school worse than one comprised of educated whites if perform the same academically such as the same ACT scores.

100% correct and that's exactly what I wrote.

However there few if any majority Hispanic or black LAUSD schools that out perform any majority white LAUSD schools. This is easy enough to illustrate with Cal Dept of Education Data which provide performance data for every school and demographic breakdown for every school.

[Kaphawoman]

Originally Posted by toben67

Even though the demographics are low income Hispanics, that doesn't make the school worse than one comprised of educated whites if perform the same academically such as the same ACT scores.

But a much lower percentage of kids in those schools are even taking AP classes and college entrance exams in the first place.

[SoCal_Native]

Originally Posted by Kaphawoman

But a much lower percentage of kids in those schools are even taking AP classes and college entrance exams in the first place.

Why?

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by SoCal_Native

Why?

People who take college admissions tests, and especially the ACT in California, are not a representative sample of the population of schools for 2 reasons:

1. The only people who take college admission tests are people who either have a desire or some sort of pressure to go to college. At a good high school, maybe 90% are taking the SAT. At a bad high school, maybe 30% take it. So for average SAT scores, you may be comparing most of the students at one high school vs the top third of students at another.

2. For the ACT, this is going to be even more exagerated. For whatever reason, different areas of the country use either SAT or ACT. The SAT is much more popular on the East and West Coast as well as Texas. The ACT is much more popular in the Midwest, Mountain States, and the Southern States that aren't on the Atlantic. Colleges don't tend to have a strong preference. If you live in California and take a college admission test, the vast majority take the SAT. Those that are trying to get in to super competitive colleges may take both, hoping that they'll get a better score on the ACT than they did on the SAT. Most California kids will never take the ACT. If you compare ACT scores from a not as good high school to a good high school, you might be comparing the 5 top kids at the less competitive high school to the top 80 kids at the better high school.

I just wanted to point out that looking at ACT scores isn't great for comparing schools since it's a very select group of students who are taking the ACT in California.

I tend to agree with other posters that as long as there aren't a lot of behavior issues, by Jr High smart kids from good homes are in all advanced classes and not held back by those whose parents don't care or don't have the ability to push them in school, regardless of where they go to school. Some more average students may do better if the social norms they were exposed to were to study and stay mostly out of trouble, rather than being surounded by kids that blow off school and cause problems. For the worst students, going to a good school probably won't make them good students, but maybe there is a lower likelihood that they get themselves tied up with gangs.

[Vic Romano]

Originally Posted by toben67

I see a lot of people here saying how LAUSD schools are bad except for palisades charter and you should send your kids to private school, yet I think I disagree. Using the neighborhood Sherman Oaks, for example, if we are talking high school the public schools perform almost the same as the private schools- assuming you are not talking about the elite expensive ones such as Harvard-Westlake and The Buckley School.

Look at the school profile for Notre Dame High School,a private school in Sherman Oaks, and you will see the average ACT is a 25.5 and the average SAT is a 1210. Compared that to some of the local public schoolsNorth Hollywood Senior High and Van Nuys Senior High which have average ACT scores of 25 there not much of a difference academically. A child could succeed in either one of these schools public or private. The only exception I found was Ulysses S. Grant high school which is quite low performing.

After doing this research I don't think private schools are worth it unless you have money to shell for the really expensive schools such as Harvard-Westlake, Buckley, Maymount, Brentwood, Campbell, etc. Perhaps my standards are lower than most of you as I don't believe you need to go to a competitive charter school or a fancy private school to succeed. I don't see anything really wrong with most LAUSD schools. Can you prove me wrong though?

I also just found out that the AP pass rate is 10% high at Van Nuys senior high than it is at Notre Dame.

By the way, did you decide to live in Beverly Hills or Hollywood Hills?

//www.city-data.com/forum/los-a...l#post42033867

Or the Upper East Side???

//www.city-data.com/forum/city-...rly-hills.html