2011 NoVa SAT Scores (Windsor: unemployed, school, DMV)

[JD984]

Originally Posted by michgc

No, lower-scoring schools will not necessarily end up with no families. Remember what is affordable for one person is not affordable for another. For example, for someone who makes $50K per year, he may be aching to get out of PG County and into a "better" school district. For him moving his family to Stuart HS, for example IS a big improvement. So it's not like the Stuart HS boundaries will never have families in it, but it may be filled with families where that boundary is the most they can afford.

On the other hand, someone who makes $150K may be aching to get out of the Stuart pyramid and move into the Marshall HS pyramid, because that's the best he can afford.

And someone who lives in the Marshall pyramid who just landed a $300K job might feel he can do better and move to the Langley pyramid.

I'm not saying EVERYONE does this. And of course, neighborhood, commute, size of house, etc. come into play. But most people who care about education will move to the "best" school district they can afford even if it's not the "best" school district out there.

I think that portrays a bit more rigid and focused "laddering" than actually takes place in most quarters, unless you define "most people who care about education" as those who do not simply consider things like test scores, but ascribe primary if not controlling importance to them.

In addition, while a posting of SAT scores invariably leads to a debate about high schools, people look at the whole package, including the elementary and middle school assignments.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

The issue of school inequality is interesting to me. I think most of us feel like something is very wrong with the whole system--that where your parents live shouldn't dictate the kind of education you get..

So back to my original premise - given the same quality of facilities, teacher skills and experience, and curriculum (allowing there may be minor variations) how does sending your kids to a school of lower performers affect their educational outcomes? I'd like to get a better understanding of that. Is the concern about their safety, the possibly of their being lulled into bad behavior, distraction and diversion of resources to problem kids, lack of inspiration, or ? Most high schools have AP, IB, and/or honors classses. Is an issue that they should be able to learn better in the regular classes?

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

But I don't know what can be done, short of kidnapping everyone's kids and putting them into some militarized government-run boarding school from the time they're four years old and making them read Charlotte's Web over and over. They'd probably be better off, but somehow, I think there might be objections!

An example of how personal liberty produces sub-optimal results.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

So back to my original premise - given the same quality of facilities, teacher skills and experience, and curriculum (allowing there may be minor variations) how does sending your kids to a school of lower performers affect their educational outcomes? I'd like to get a better understanding of that. Is the concern about their safety, the possibly of their being lulled into bad behavior, distraction and diversion of resources to problem kids, lack of inspiration, or ? Most high schools have AP, IB, and/or honors classses. Is an issue that they should be able to learn better in the regular classes?

Given the same facilities, teachers, etc.? Well, I think that's an unrealistic premise. But if our kid went to say Wakefield or JEB Stuart, I picture rough MS13 types harassing him in the hall for being a nerd, the vast majority of kids using bad grammar, his "regular" English class (because there's no funding for a GT English class, due to the preponderance of ESL kids) struggling to make it through The Red Pony. No crew team. No "It's Academic." Stressed-out teachers whose time is used up dealing with the many behavior problems. I picture there being an overwhelming sense that school is about being a tough guy or a jock and that caring about academics is for wimps.

[michgc]

Originally Posted by JEB77

I think that portrays a bit more rigid and focused "laddering" than actually takes place in most quarters, unless you define "most people who care about education" as those who do not simply consider things like test scores, but ascribe primary if not controlling importance to them.

In addition, while a posting of SAT scores invariably leads to a debate about high schools, people look at the whole package, including the elementary and middle school assignments.

Yes, that is perhaps a bit more rigid than how it takes place IRL. I think I was just trying to make a point. I don't think if my husband suddenly got a raise to $300K that we'd be "movin' on up" to McLean, because we really like Vienna. And I also don't think we'd fit in there. But in general, I think people try to find a school that is the best fit for them, with scores being one part of it, as well as the school culture, the other children who attend (high-income, low-income, language, etc). With all else being equal (which it usually isn't), I think most people would pick the school with the better test scores.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

Given the same facilities, teachers, etc.? Well, I think that's an unrealistic premise. But if our kid went to say Wakefield or JEB Stuart, I picture rough MS13 types harassing him in the hall for being a nerd, the vast majority of kids using bad grammar, his "regular" English class (because there's no funding for a GT English class, due to the preponderance of ESL kids) struggling to make it through The Red Pony. No crew team. No "It's Academic." Stressed-out teachers whose time is used up dealing with the many behavior problems. I picture there being an overwhelming sense that school is about being a tough guy or a jock and that caring about academics is for wimps.

Is that perception or reality? How did you come up with that as a likely scenario? Input from friends? Newspaper accounts? My kids went to Mount Vernon and West Potomac, which score similarly and have similar demographic challenges, and didn't experience that type of thing at all. Granted both those schools had solid IB, AP, and Honors programs. Both have crew teams. Both had extras like "It's Academic".

It would be interesting to hear from parents of kids, or kids themselves, who did have those types of issues and which school they went to. Perhaps these problems are isolated to certain schools, not necessarily all with lower scores.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

Given the same facilities, teachers, etc.? Well, I think that's an unrealistic premise. But if our kid went to say Wakefield or JEB Stuart, I picture rough MS13 types harassing him in the hall for being a nerd, the vast majority of kids using bad grammar, his "regular" English class (because there's no funding for a GT English class, due to the preponderance of ESL kids) struggling to make it through The Red Pony. No crew team. No "It's Academic." Stressed-out teachers whose time is used up dealing with the many behavior problems. I picture there being an overwhelming sense that school is about being a tough guy or a jock and that caring about academics is for wimps.

You were joking, right? I picture kids bobbing and weaving through the HS equivalent of the U.N., with the Hispanic kids pretty much ignoring the other kids, and vice versa, unless they know each other from classes or some extra-curricular activity. Anyway:

Crew Team: J.E.B. Stuart High School Crew [Stuart won the district title in tennis in 2008 and 2009; are you holding out for golf, too?]

It's Academic Sponsor: pamela.martinov@fcps.edu

Couldn't find a specific link for the IB English classes (GT/AAP is for ES and MS students).

It does typically report a lot of disciplinary issues every year, which must take up a lot of attention from administrators, but I wonder how much they involve or affect most students.

[claremarie]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

So back to my original premise - given the same quality of facilities, teacher skills and experience, and curriculum (allowing there may be minor variations) how does sending your kids to a school of lower performers affect their educational outcomes?

A school with lower performers, especially if they are significantly lower and also come with language/family/behavioral issues, will not offer the same educational experience to a high-achiever as a Lake Wobegon school where all of the kids are above average, and come from supportive, two-parent families. Even with smaller class sizes available to needy schools, teachers simply will not be able to challenge the able learners while still giving the struggling students the attention they need. Understandably, they will breathe a sigh of relief that this child always knows the answers and never disrupts the class. The concept of "differentiated instruction" is a joke, particularly in classrooms with a significant ability range. (For some reason, no one suggests that high school math classes should be taught in that manner, lumping together the students who are ready for calculus with those whose who are still struggling with algebra. But it's supposed to be a perfect solution for fifth graders.) And lots of kids, especially boys, need the motivation and challenge supplied by competing with their intellectual peers. All of this is especially true for kids from racial minorities, who often have to struggle against a community culture that downplays learning and achievement.

[michgc]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Would that be revealed through SAT scores? Do ESL kids take the SATs?

What I'm trying to get across is that there weren't many extra programs in the school or after school for high-achieving kids. Like I said, she likes the school and thinks they get a good education, but if you compare her school to a school where most of the kids are high achieving, they don't have the same resources devoted to them - things like chess clubs, Odyssey of the Mind, LEGO Robotics, etc. Instead, most of the extra programs are extra English classes and programs geared to bringing up the lower-achieving kids. In the end will it affect how these high-achieving kids do? I really don't know.

[CAVA1990]

Perhaps a poor analogy but this sounds almost like people touting a 5 star restaurant over a 4 star by telling you if you don't take their advice you're at increased risk of food poisoning.