Boston Magazine 2020 High School rankings (Billerica, Acton: transfer, neighborhoods, purchasing)

[Bridge781]

Unfortunately it’s not easy to find schools that have a mix of wealth.

I went to an isl school in high school. Most kids were wealthy. Interestingly the poorer white kids seemed to be looked down upon and the poorer black and Hispanic kids were idolized. Most of them were good at a sport.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by Lampert

Just the fact that athletics is considered make me think the ranking is trash. Low expenditure per student and good results is the best possible outcome for a school. Why spending more? To build a football stadium to give your students TBIs?

The diversity data also is hard to interpret. Shrewsbury high school = B+, 53.2% white students.
Coronado high school in El Paso= B+, 82% latino students.

Maybe economic diversity plays a big part in the score. But a high diversity score should be achieved only if students of different background achieve similar results, not just if there are students of different backgrounds.

Whites are more the norm so a schools that’s more Latino is more unique, and ‘diverse’ than a whiter school. I mean shrewsbury is whiter than the average school district nationwide. If Latinos were 60% of the country a 82% Latino school wouldnt be very diverse.

[id77]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Given how school districts impact COL, I'd argue it becomes self fulfilling. Parents focused on outcomes will choose the better district over the larger/nicer/cheaper home is 'lesser districts', meaning lower middle class students are more likely to have involved/active parents.

This is more speaking to the truth than simply striving for living in wealthy areas. Some wealthy parents are more success-oriented and their kids pick up on that. Motivated middle class parents are success-oriented and their kids pick up on that.

It's the parents that are far and away the biggest indicator of a child's success, not the school. The highly ranked districts aren't churning out success because they're great schools. The highly ranked districts are churning out success because they attracted the types of families who are prioritizing success. Sending a kid to one of these schools isn't going to make them successful unless the parents are also on-board with creating an environment conducive to success.

And the thing is, those success-oriented parents can do this from most districts; the school district isn't required to achieve success.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by id77

This is more speaking to the truth than simply striving for living in wealthy areas. Some wealthy parents are more success-oriented and their kids pick up on that. Motivated middle class parents are success-oriented and their kids pick up on that.

It's the parents that are far and away the biggest indicator of a child's success, not the school. The highly ranked districts aren't churning out success because they're great schools. The highly ranked districts are churning out success because they attracted the types of families who are prioritizing success. Sending a kid to one of these schools isn't going to make them successful unless the parents are also on-board with creating an environment conducive to success.

And the thing is, those success-oriented parents can do this from most districts; the school district isn't required to achieve success.

So we mostly agree.

Thing is, there's a high correlation between 'high income' and 'success-oriented', therefor selecting a higher income district is a rather intuitive .... albeit flawed and overly simplistic ... choice. For me personally, this means 'solidly middle class'. Not necessarily Lexington or Acton-Box.

I wish it weren't the case, but as one moves down the income ladder the stats become rather dismal.

[id77]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

So we mostly agree.

Thing is, there's a high correlation between 'high income' and 'success-oriented', therefor selecting a higher income district is a rather intuitive .... albeit flawed and overly simplistic ... choice. For me personally, this means 'solidly middle class'. Not necessarily Lexington or Acton-Box.

I wish it weren't the case, but as one moves down the income ladder the stats become rather dismal.

The barrier for the lower incomes is life as a priority. The wealthy have the luxury of working from home, feeding their kids good food, and spending times with them (or shipping them off with a nanny or someone who spends time with the kids). The poor are working two jobs and just trying to keep a roof over their head. It's not that they can't be every bit as successful, but they have other problems to deal with.

I just wish more well-to-do families looked at this as an opportunity to help society rather than as an excuse to flee to the sanctity of privileged schools. It reeks of FYIGM and the racist white flight back in the 50s.

As an aside, isn't Acton/Boxborough 'solidly middle class'? I lived in Boxboro until 2015 and found it very middle class feeling. Not so much blue collar, but the real estate market there was quite affordable and most neighbors I knew were in rank and file positions. Has it changed that much in the last 5 years?

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Whites are more the norm so a schools that’s more Latino is more unique, and ‘diverse’ than a whiter school. I mean shrewsbury is whiter than the average school district nationwide. If Latinos were 60% of the country a 82% Latino school wouldnt be very diverse.

I highly disagree with this statement.
The point of diversity in the school system is to expose people with different background to each other.
If everyone has the same background (at least racially) there is no diversity, it doesn't matter if it's a minority or majority. School kids interact mostly with their school mates, going to Walmart and see people that don't look like you doesn't really make you understand them and that is supposedly the point of having racially diverse classes.

That said, in this specific case El Paso county is 85% Latino.So not only your school il latino but everywhere you go is latino. Is pretty much reverse Vermont.

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by id77

The barrier for the lower incomes is life as a priority. The wealthy have the luxury of working from home, feeding their kids good food, and spending times with them (or shipping them off with a nanny or someone who spends time with the kids). The poor are working two jobs and just trying to keep a roof over their head. It's not that they can't be every bit as successful, but they have other problems to deal with.

I just wish more well-to-do families looked at this as an opportunity to help society rather than as an excuse to flee to the sanctity of privileged schools. It reeks of FYIGM and the racist white flight back in the 50s.

You are asking for people to hurt their own kids for a supposed greater good. You need the government to do something, you can't expect me to not choose the best I can for my kids.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Lampert

I highly disagree with this statement.
The point of diversity in the school system is to expose people with different background to each other.
If everyone has the same background (at least racially) there is no diversity, it doesn't matter if it's a minority or majority. School kids interact mostly with their school mates, going to Walmart and see people that don't look like you doesn't really make you understand them and that is supposedly the point of having racially diverse classes.

That said, in this specific case El Paso county is 85% Latino.So not only your school il latino but everywhere you go is latino. Is pretty much reverse Vermont.

That's very true. In context of El Paso, white absolutely isn't the norm. An 82% Hispanic school there would be the antithesis of diversity. The white kid in Shrewsbury is being exposed to "more" than the Hispanic kid is down there.

[id77]

Originally Posted by Lampert

You are asking for people to hurt their own kids for a supposed greater good. You need the government to do something, you can't expect me to not choose the best I can for my kids.

It doesn't hurt your kids, though. I've already stated I believe the parents make the success, so success-motivated parents' kids are going to be every bit as successful in a Boston as they are in an Acton/Boxboro. With the former, they are also exposed to much more diversity and may actually grow up not thinking that poor people are a scourge that bring down any neighborhood they live in (as Trump likes to dog-whistle to his base).

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by id77

It doesn't hurt your kids, though. I've already stated I believe the parents make the success, so success-motivated parents' kids are going to be every bit as successful in a Boston as they are in an Acton/Boxboro. With the former, they are also exposed to much more diversity and may actually grow up not thinking that poor people are a scourge that bring down any neighborhood they live in (as Trump likes to dog-whistle to his base).

Dude did you go to BPS, or even know anyone who did?