School Quality in Phoenix Suburbs?

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by observer53

Let's try to keep this thread focused on the OP's questions, not about retirees/school taxes/Sun City, etc. Further posts of that nature will be deleted.

The OPs question (which districts should he look at) is related to funding which is related to taxes. Funding increases fail when the burden is shifted to a smaller group.

Excluding problem areas of Phoenix that spend a lot on advanced babysitting versus education, how much you spend correlates to what you learn. Of course if you spend 2x more, you won't get 2X better test scores. The massive fat inside of school districts has been cut out over a decade ago. In problem districts, performance is only going to go up if you hire replacement parents because the family culture is broke. Those districts spend money on psychologists, police, more police, security, etc. It's not going to teach material. So you certainly cannot pick a district that spends the most or you will be in the worst part of town. This last sentence is why spending more doesn't matter in the test scores. You have to remove these outliers in order to understand spending more in say Gilbert helps.

So when referendums fail in lean funded areas like Phoenix burbs, it now translates to bloated classrooms, cut programs like band and the arts, less variety of subjects, less teachers, less funding college caliber classes in the schools, etc. Since AZ and Phoenix proper rank near the bottom of the country in school spending, the OP is concerned. So my advice was to be careful entering a district where the neighborhood culture votes no. One reason is because heavily retiree areas don't have kids in school such as Apache Junction, Surprise, etc. Also since Arizona has allowed some areas and citizens to dodge school taxes and pay squat in property taxes, other people like myself who also don't have kids need to pony up a higher percentage to still get the 3rd lowest funded schools in the country.

So if I was searching for areas to send my kids to school here, I'd be looking at privates. If I had to chose public, I'd dodge the no-voting retirees and dodge areas that have problems because those dollars don't get to the classroom. I'd also pick higher income areas because they have some more dollars in their pocket to vote "yes". Statistically speaking, higher income areas also means higher educated parents. Normally college educated people can more easily grasp why you get what you pay for (assuming the $$'s don't go to district problem babysitting or waste).

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

The OPs question (which districts should he look at) is related to funding which is related to taxes. Funding increases fail when the burden is shifted to a smaller group.

Excluding problem areas of Phoenix that spend a lot on advanced babysitting versus education, how much you spend correlates to what you learn. Of course if you spend 2x more, you won't get 2X better test scores. The massive fat inside of school districts has been cut out over a decade ago. In problem districts, performance is only going to go up if you hire replacement parents because the family culture is broke. Those districts spend money on psychologists, police, more police, security, etc. It's not going to teach material. So you certainly cannot pick a district that spends the most or you will be in the worst part of town. This last sentence is why spending more doesn't matter in the test scores. You have to remove these outliers in order to understand spending more in say Gilbert helps.

So when referendums fail in lean funded areas like Phoenix burbs, it now translates to bloated classrooms, cut programs like band and the arts, less variety of subjects, less teachers, less funding college caliber classes in the schools, etc. Since AZ and Phoenix proper rank near the bottom of the country in school spending, the OP is concerned. So my advice was to be careful entering a district where the neighborhood culture votes no. One reason is because heavily retiree areas don't have kids in school such as Apache Junction, Surprise, etc. Also since Arizona has allowed some areas and citizens to dodge school taxes and pay squat in property taxes, other people like myself who also don't have kids need to pony up a higher percentage to still get the 3rd lowest funded schools in the country.

So if I was searching for areas to send my kids to school here, I'd be looking at privates. If I had to chose public, I'd dodge the no-voting retirees and dodge areas that have problems because those dollars don't get to the classroom. I'd also pick higher income areas because they have some more dollars in their pocket to vote "yes". Statistically speaking, higher income areas also means higher educated parents. Normally college educated people can more easily grasp why you get what you pay for (assuming the $$'s don't go to district problem babysitting or waste).

The same rules apply here as the OP mentions for Chicago. The rule of thumb is that more uniformly affluent areas have better schools - at least in terms of average test performance for the reasons you state. I think that is pretty much true all over the US. Pick a neighborhood with an above median home price and you will do OK.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

The same rules apply here as the OP mentions for Chicago. The rule of thumb is that more uniformly affluent areas have better schools - at least in terms of average test performance for the reasons you state. I think that is pretty much true all over the US. Pick a neighborhood with an above median home price and you will do OK.

Agreed. But with a twist. The "better" performing districts simply shed more family cultures that don't care. So the biggest part of why wealthier areas have better test scores is that they don't have as many kids that drop the averages. Those results skew what occurs on an individual basis.

So long as you don't have a lot of distractions from problem areas schools and they are adequately funded, you don't have to pay attention to the average test scores to get the same quality. I only wanted properly funded schools with enough kids that were motivated so that my kids could flourish. Within reason, it didn't matter what the averages were. I stared at the top quartile and made sure they had a lot of standout kids. If those kids kicked butt and my kids were in that group, it didn't effect my kids performance if the other 30% of the kids didn't pass basic standards. They are not taking classes with them in high school. Now in elementary schools, you have to be more concerned because other kids can easily slow down the motivated kids. We worked with our kids so that they got into the highest groups in elementary. They then become friends with the motivated kids.

The problem with say Dysart is there are some problem schools that suck up a lot of the funds for babysitting overhead. When you see they spend less than Gilbert district AND they have more problems, you know less $$'s are getting to the motivated kids. That's why I would be afraid to send my kids in the Valley. They have cut to the bone and federal laws dictate they have to spend $$'s outside of the classroom. Logic tells me those districts have substandard opportunities and over burdened classrooms.

It's like medicine. We know there is a massive amount of waste and inefficiencies that rival education. But who votes (with their wallet) to pick the cheapest plan in the spirit of teaching healthcare a lesson? Valley residents seem to want to teach education a lesson and figure they must know how much they should spend based on what zero research by talking to the board members. It's the culture here in AZ. They will continue to point to a plot showing test scores and funding. They will always ignore the inner city spending that is the outlier. So the solution is to go private, charter, or carefully pick the district that has the smallest problems because there is no other good options.

[azriverfan.]

Major reps to MN-born-n-Raised, I couldn't agree more with his posts and I wish I could rep it.

I think it's the American way to blame others for your problems. It's always someone elses' fault. I think this pertains to education as well. I know poor Asian, Jewish and Mormon families whose children do not have access to stellar schools but excel and get scholarships and/or attend the nation's best colleges. What was their excuse? I think there are exceptions but in my experience, a lot of people want to blame schools for their poor parenting. It's your responsibility to teach values, stress education, stress discipline, stress completion of homework etc. It's not the teachers' job to raise your kids and increasing funding is not going to improve test scores or make your kids study. I mean there are resources everywhere. How hard is it to purchase a Kaplan or Princeton Review SAT or ACT prep. If you can't afford it, there are multiple copies of them in libraries all over the city. There is no secret; it's called hard work. No one is going to give you a top score; you have to earn that on your own. Even in good schools, money doesn't buy test scores. Those kids come home and bust their tail studying for hours for those tests and know those prep books cold.

As MN-born-n-Raised implied, the only real advantage I see to sending kids to better schools is that they are surrounded by other strong students who motivate one another to excel (ie it's not acceptable to get bad grades because everyone in your class is striving for something better). I went to public school and 90% of the kids in my class prioritized being a star athlete, getting laid, partying and being popular. A lot of them sold drugs to be popular (they wanted money to buy nice clothes and have a nice ride) And it's easy to get distracted and not focus on academics when the majority of your peers are not focused. I was lucky and unusual in that I was very self-motivated but if I wasn't self-motivated, I could easily see how I would have fallen through the cracks.

Like MN-born-n-Raised, I think there are excellent schools all over the Valley. I would research greatschools.org and visit the school. I would primarily examine the student body and see what the focus is. In general, I try to avoid "jock" schools which focus on sports. It's true there are schools that excel in both but usually the focus is still on sports even in those schools. I like the charter system because it allows for the creation of schools with a focus so if you want your child to excel in math + science, they have the option .