What makes a school district good? (Seattle, Kent: neighborhoods, school districts, college)

[Ira500]

There's been a lot of discussion here about school districts, and I've blabbed my opinions as much as anybody, but it got me thinking: Are people's definition of what a good school district is all the same?
Some people are going by test scores, what percentage of students pass the WASL tests, and by that measure Mercer Island and the rest of the eastside schools, and Maple Valley, Shoreline and a few others do very well. But what does that indicate about a school district? I really truly don't know the answer. What happens if only 60% of the students pass the WASL tests? Does it mean that the teachers are bad, or does it mean that the students are dunces and more energy and money has to be spend educating the dumb kids, and not enough resources are being allocated to your bright child?
Would a district like Mercer Island put a lot of academic pressure on it's students to excel, and is that a good thing?
Some people also judge districts based on the number of free or reduced lunches and the percentage of students in ESL classes. What's that about? Is it that we don't want our children having immigrants and poor kids as their classmates, or do we feel that to many resources will be expended in that direction, and not on our bright children?
My son went to Seattle public schools. I felt that he was safe in the schools, and had provided to him opportunities to excel and advance and do well in college. Yet I would say as a whole that the Seattle school district is awful, because as a parent you have to research schools thoroughly, there are tons of bad ones, and the administration is incompetent.
Kent, on the other hand, has a pretty bad percentage of students passing the WASL, but has a gifted, advanced student program that is award winning and has a great reputation.
What makes a good school, and what make s a good school district?

[jinj]

Realtors and parents think all school districts are 'award winning'.

If only 60% of student pass tests, it doesn't mean that the school district is bad. It usually means that the parents of the children in that district are bad parents, not the schools themselves. They still have very smart children from those schools.

The more rural the school, the safer the school would be, IMHO.

A good school district to me is one that doesn't put ballot measure to vote taxes increases each and every year, thinking money will fix all the problems.
I also think a school that teaches a single religion of any kind is bad (most private schools?), I was taught about all religions at my public school.

[allforcats]

Originally Posted by jinj

Realtors and parents think all school districts are 'award winning'.

I would be helpful if we could answer the OP's questions. The OP shows he is both a realtor and a parent, and he clearly stated no such opinion.

[MJinAustin]

Originally Posted by Ira500

There's been a lot of discussion here about school districts, and I've blabbed my opinions as much as anybody, but it got me thinking: Are people's definition of what a good school district is all the same?

No. But when most people ask which is the best or which is good, I think they usually mean a well-funded, mostly white, upper-middle class school. Maybe that's fine for a lot of kids, but my daughter is special-needs and that type of school might not be best for her. What I have discovered is that as a parent, you must research and interview prospective schools - even public ones. There are huge differences in how schools are run, what they focus on, if the staff is happy there (makes a big difference), how big the school is...etc. Perhaps your child is really into sports...then you might want to focus on a school that has a wide variety and goes to championships. Some schools have great drama depts, some have high academic standards... It's hard to answer the "what schools are good" question because it's so subjective. My "good" is a smaller neighborhood school with a close-knit faculty and parent group, and a good special needs program. Someone else's "good" might be a large school with lots of extra-curricular activities and a high profile.

Originally Posted by Ira500

Some people are going by test scores, what percentage of students pass the WASL tests.......But what does that indicate about a school district?

Could it mean that the kids are bright on the whole? Or could it mean that the teachers are teaching to the test?

Originally Posted by Ira500

Some people also judge districts based on the number of free or reduced lunches and the percentage of students in ESL classes. What's that about? Is it that we don't want our children having immigrants and poor kids as their classmates, or do we feel that to many resources will be expended in that direction, and not on our bright children?

Well, I think I know what that's about. It is assumed - and maybe it's true in some cases - that lower-income families are less committed to being an integral part of their child's education. It's assumed that these children aren't held to a high academic standard by their parents, therefore, the value of the education at the school decreases as a whole. This is not to say that all upper-income families are all involved in their kids' education either, but their kids might be more inclined to follow in their parents' professional footsteps. Think too about the types of teachers who would WANT to teach at an underperforming school or a school with a high percentage of under-privileged kids --- they are either really dedicated to wanting to help this population of kids (and there probably aren't many of those) or they are new teachers who were placed there on their first jobs and at first chance will move onto a more upper-income school (I know some teachers so...).

As a realtor, perhaps when people ask what the "good" schools are, you should ask them to define what they think a good school is. I bet you'd be surprised at the variety of answers you get.

[MJinAustin]

Did some more research on a site called schooldigger.com and there is a definite correlation between the % of students who get free lunch and low standardized test scores. I was really surprised. Interestingly there were a couple of schools (I was looking at Texas schools) that scored very high AND had almost 100% of students on free lunch. Those are obviously the exceptions, but it proves that low-income students can perform very well as a group too. Most schools in the high scoring areas came from upper-income neighborhoods...so that's probably where all the assumptions come from...there's some data to back them up.

The other thing that was funny was that a lot of low scoring schools have names like XYZ "Academy" and XYZ "School of Excellence".

[CityGirl72]

Supposedly the Seattle school my son is in is good - supposedly it's a feeder school from the Spectrum program.

SUPPOSEDLY.

They haven't taught him more than what he could have learned on his own. They've never challnged him. The principal and her staff are ignorant, and only self serving (and that assistant is cranky!)

I grew up in LA and do not know about those safe school in suburbs (we were in the suburbs but kids were bussed into our schools from bad neighborhoods all over)

And I don't think the "mostly white" statement applies. Our school has alot of of white kids or asian. And I find my son is losing out on diversity. And I can only imagine how bright the white is over in the suburbs!! Their might be sercuirty for kids but when do they learn about accepting of one another - and not supriority?

So what is good to me, an outstanding interactive staff, teachers that know strengths and weakness of whom they teach so they can challenge when the need arrives, keep my child engaged so that he comes to school "looking for more" or hungry for learning, and cultural, so that it's just like life outside school.

[MJinAustin]

Originally Posted by CityGirl72

And I don't think the "mostly white" statement applies. Our school has alot of of white kids or asian. And I find my son is losing out on diversity. And I can only imagine how bright the white is over in the suburbs!! Their might be sercuirty for kids but when do they learn about accepting of one another - and not supriority?

I agree with you. I'm not personally saying that "mostly white" makes a better school, I'm saying that spoken or unspoken, I believe when most people say they want a "good" school that that's something they are looking for...whether it's right or wrong.

[CityGirl72]

Dude could I have MORE typos in my posts - that is what I get for typing fast with a bowl of Cheerios in my lap

[Ira500]

I'm not personally saying that "mostly white" makes a better school, I'm saying that spoken or unspoken, I believe when most people say they want a "good" school that that's something they are looking for...whether it's right or wrong

More than that, I think when many people talk about "good schools" not only do they want "mostly white", they also want "mostly rich or at least mostly upper middle class".

[jwb123]

I think when many people talk about "good schools" not only do they want "mostly white", they also want "mostly rich or at least mostly upper middle class".

Totally disagree.

I think a "good school district" means different things to different people. Some people only are focused on stats and test scores. Other people want to know what level of parent involvement one could expect, and what time of "extras" the school provides. Some people (like me, with a special needs child) are more concerned about level of funding, bonds that have passed, or recent proposals... and outcome of votes on such, voting history in a specific district.

I have 3 kids. 2 in elementary. I have been in an average school district and now I am in one considered as one of the best. Both were diverse, though the one we are in now is more so because the area as a whole is more diverse than Seattle is. I don't know anyone who doesn't appreciate diversity? Maybe in Alabama or Kentucky....

... as for "mostly rich", I would choose a good district with average incomes over "the best" with higher than average incomes. Besides probably being priced out of the later (which makes my personal choice easy), bored rich kids are problems waiting to happen.

I don't know, I have never once considered % who receive free lunch, nor really cared much about the % of ESL. It's all about funding for me. That's not to say that other people don't care. Maybe those people don't care about funding. Or some care about gifted programs. Or what language is offered. Or... Or... Or...

It's all subjective and specific to each family.

What does this have to do with Washington, or Seattle??