fixation on school districts

[wbk]

Hi Rich,

Interesting question – I bet the details are different for different people, but here’s my take on it. My background is that I went to school in Del Mar, have two kids in the San Marcos schools, and I teach in a local college.

Question 1 – we’re still renting, but we definitely tried to get rentals in places with schools with high API scores. We’re in San Marcos, not Poway, because (as you mentioned) above a certain level we figured the schools were pretty equivalent, and it wasn’t worth the extra commute time and cost. We consider this to be a choice for our kids’ benefit, since less commute time means more time at home, and less cost means more money for college funds, travel, etc. Personally, some of the most useful classes I took in school were shop and cooking classes – I still use those skills today. I think generally, though, that even if people agree with you that school doesn’t teach a lot that you need to know, people will generally not choose to send their kids to weaker schools if they can afford to send them to stronger ones. Hard to look at your kids and say “hey, it’s good enough for you.” Many irrational parenting decisions are made based on this, I reckon.

Question 2 – I already admitted we paid attention to the API scores, but we know full well they miss important things. The comment above about school-provided services in Poway are a case in point. We basically used the API’s because they were available, and it’s really hard to judge schools (much like picking a doctor or dentist). And, yes absolutely, schools bend over backward to try to post good scores, because school funding (and now I believe even teacher salaries) are tied to the things. But, when it’s all said and done, I don’t think there are huge surprises in the API scores (just published in the NC times) – districts reputed for a long time to be good had high API’s, weak ones have low API scores. I have no doubt that API scores reinforce and perpetuate the “good” and “weak” reputations of schools, but before the scores these reputations were formed and perpetuated in other ways, so I’m not sure the API is doing anything new in that regard.

[sdduuuude]

OK. Interesting question.

Keep in mind:
1) All comments below assume a non-stabby school.
2) “Education experience” does not always mean readin’, ritin’ and ‘rithmetic. It has to do with how much fun they have learning, whether they make good friends, trust their teacher, want to continue staying in school, etc.
3) To a parent, putting your child in an environment where they are not happy is very, very bad.

Also don’t forget where the rubber meets the road – at the teacher. The one thing that will make your kids education experience better (again assuming a non-stabby school) is the teacher(s).

Whether I feel a high API will affect my kids’ careers or not is irrelevant. The question is – do people in general feel a high API will make their kids experience better. I think they do feel that way, and thus tehre is a market for it and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“A market for it” means parents with money. Parents with money mean parents dump cash into the school over and above the government funding. The PTA and school foundations supply additional or special teachers for science, art, PE, music, etc.

Not only do these programs make the education experience much better but they attract better teachers. They get better supplies, nicer rooms, higher-end equipment, etc. Teachers prefer to work in schools with more money. It’s a significanly more pleasant environment. That also means better teachers compete for these jobs and only the best get them.

Another comment I have heard is that SD city schools are not as community-oriented as some of the CV schools. All the people in CV schools live very close. People in San Diego city school district try to “choice” into schools that are better than the schools in their immediate neighborhood. Clairemont people try to get into PB and La Jolla or UTC. Parents tend to donate to the school with a tight-knit neighborhood influence.

Because of the money involved, I do think schools are playing games with the API. They don’t want to disappoint their donors, and they want to attract more. I suspect they all play games with it. In fact I know some that have. So there is some noise in the system but not enough to make a crappy school look great. I think the schools in the better neighborhods do it to save face and keep the money flowing.

Now, back to the teacher. If you get a great teacher in a non-stabby school with middle-of-the-road API, you will be happy as happy can be because you spent less on your house. What you won’t get is specially funded programs over and above the basic curriculum. No extra money for special educational programs or new Macs or LCD projectors in the room. You may also be less likely to get a good teacher next year cuz the good teachers at crappy schools are looking to move up.

I know what you are really getting at – Is there a school district bubble? Are people paying too much for homes in nice school district. With the state of the housing market (i.e. mid-level neighborhoods crashing and high-end neighborhoods hanging tough), there may very well be one, and I suppose it will pop when the high end goes.

From my experience, I would also say FLU’s comments about the Asians valuing the high API more than others is true. To them, the “educational experience” more about the curricula & prestige and less about the friends, relationships, fun, quality of life, etc.

I think the people at Harvard are smart enough to recognize a smart kid from a crappy school when they see one.

[sdduuuude]

OK. Interesting question.

Keep in mind:
1) All comments below assume a non-stabby school.
2) “Education experience” does not always mean readin’, ritin’ and ‘rithmetic. It has to do with how much fun they have learning, whether they make good friends, trust their teacher, want to continue staying in school, etc.
3) To a parent, putting your child in an environment where they are not happy is very, very bad.

Also don’t forget where the rubber meets the road – at the teacher. The one thing that will make your kids education experience better (again assuming a non-stabby school) is the teacher(s).

Whether I feel a high API will affect my kids’ careers or not is irrelevant. The question is – do people in general feel a high API will make their kids experience better. I think they do feel that way, and thus tehre is a market for it and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“A market for it” means parents with money. Parents with money mean parents dump cash into the school over and above the government funding. The PTA and school foundations supply additional or special teachers for science, art, PE, music, etc.

Not only do these programs make the education experience much better but they attract better teachers. They get better supplies, nicer rooms, higher-end equipment, etc. Teachers prefer to work in schools with more money. It’s a significanly more pleasant environment. That also means better teachers compete for these jobs and only the best get them.

Another comment I have heard is that SD city schools are not as community-oriented as some of the CV schools. All the people in CV schools live very close. People in San Diego city school district try to “choice” into schools that are better than the schools in their immediate neighborhood. Clairemont people try to get into PB and La Jolla or UTC. Parents tend to donate to the school with a tight-knit neighborhood influence.

Because of the money involved, I do think schools are playing games with the API. They don’t want to disappoint their donors, and they want to attract more. I suspect they all play games with it. In fact I know some that have. So there is some noise in the system but not enough to make a crappy school look great. I think the schools in the better neighborhods do it to save face and keep the money flowing.

Now, back to the teacher. If you get a great teacher in a non-stabby school with middle-of-the-road API, you will be happy as happy can be because you spent less on your house. What you won’t get is specially funded programs over and above the basic curriculum. No extra money for special educational programs or new Macs or LCD projectors in the room. You may also be less likely to get a good teacher next year cuz the good teachers at crappy schools are looking to move up.

I know what you are really getting at – Is there a school district bubble? Are people paying too much for homes in nice school district. With the state of the housing market (i.e. mid-level neighborhoods crashing and high-end neighborhoods hanging tough), there may very well be one, and I suppose it will pop when the high end goes.

From my experience, I would also say FLU’s comments about the Asians valuing the high API more than others is true. To them, the “educational experience” more about the curricula & prestige and less about the friends, relationships, fun, quality of life, etc.

I think the people at Harvard are smart enough to recognize a smart kid from a crappy school when they see one.

[sdduuuude]

OK. Interesting question.

Keep in mind:
1) All comments below assume a non-stabby school.
2) “Education experience” does not always mean readin’, ritin’ and ‘rithmetic. It has to do with how much fun they have learning, whether they make good friends, trust their teacher, want to continue staying in school, etc.
3) To a parent, putting your child in an environment where they are not happy is very, very bad.

Also don’t forget where the rubber meets the road – at the teacher. The one thing that will make your kids education experience better (again assuming a non-stabby school) is the teacher(s).

Whether I feel a high API will affect my kids’ careers or not is irrelevant. The question is – do people in general feel a high API will make their kids experience better. I think they do feel that way, and thus tehre is a market for it and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“A market for it” means parents with money. Parents with money mean parents dump cash into the school over and above the government funding. The PTA and school foundations supply additional or special teachers for science, art, PE, music, etc.

Not only do these programs make the education experience much better but they attract better teachers. They get better supplies, nicer rooms, higher-end equipment, etc. Teachers prefer to work in schools with more money. It’s a significanly more pleasant environment. That also means better teachers compete for these jobs and only the best get them.

Another comment I have heard is that SD city schools are not as community-oriented as some of the CV schools. All the people in CV schools live very close. People in San Diego city school district try to “choice” into schools that are better than the schools in their immediate neighborhood. Clairemont people try to get into PB and La Jolla or UTC. Parents tend to donate to the school with a tight-knit neighborhood influence.

Because of the money involved, I do think schools are playing games with the API. They don’t want to disappoint their donors, and they want to attract more. I suspect they all play games with it. In fact I know some that have. So there is some noise in the system but not enough to make a crappy school look great. I think the schools in the better neighborhods do it to save face and keep the money flowing.

Now, back to the teacher. If you get a great teacher in a non-stabby school with middle-of-the-road API, you will be happy as happy can be because you spent less on your house. What you won’t get is specially funded programs over and above the basic curriculum. No extra money for special educational programs or new Macs or LCD projectors in the room. You may also be less likely to get a good teacher next year cuz the good teachers at crappy schools are looking to move up.

I know what you are really getting at – Is there a school district bubble? Are people paying too much for homes in nice school district. With the state of the housing market (i.e. mid-level neighborhoods crashing and high-end neighborhoods hanging tough), there may very well be one, and I suppose it will pop when the high end goes.

From my experience, I would also say FLU’s comments about the Asians valuing the high API more than others is true. To them, the “educational experience” more about the curricula & prestige and less about the friends, relationships, fun, quality of life, etc.

I think the people at Harvard are smart enough to recognize a smart kid from a crappy school when they see one.

[sdduuuude]

OK. Interesting question.

Keep in mind:
1) All comments below assume a non-stabby school.
2) “Education experience” does not always mean readin’, ritin’ and ‘rithmetic. It has to do with how much fun they have learning, whether they make good friends, trust their teacher, want to continue staying in school, etc.
3) To a parent, putting your child in an environment where they are not happy is very, very bad.

Also don’t forget where the rubber meets the road – at the teacher. The one thing that will make your kids education experience better (again assuming a non-stabby school) is the teacher(s).

Whether I feel a high API will affect my kids’ careers or not is irrelevant. The question is – do people in general feel a high API will make their kids experience better. I think they do feel that way, and thus tehre is a market for it and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“A market for it” means parents with money. Parents with money mean parents dump cash into the school over and above the government funding. The PTA and school foundations supply additional or special teachers for science, art, PE, music, etc.

Not only do these programs make the education experience much better but they attract better teachers. They get better supplies, nicer rooms, higher-end equipment, etc. Teachers prefer to work in schools with more money. It’s a significanly more pleasant environment. That also means better teachers compete for these jobs and only the best get them.

Another comment I have heard is that SD city schools are not as community-oriented as some of the CV schools. All the people in CV schools live very close. People in San Diego city school district try to “choice” into schools that are better than the schools in their immediate neighborhood. Clairemont people try to get into PB and La Jolla or UTC. Parents tend to donate to the school with a tight-knit neighborhood influence.

Because of the money involved, I do think schools are playing games with the API. They don’t want to disappoint their donors, and they want to attract more. I suspect they all play games with it. In fact I know some that have. So there is some noise in the system but not enough to make a crappy school look great. I think the schools in the better neighborhods do it to save face and keep the money flowing.

Now, back to the teacher. If you get a great teacher in a non-stabby school with middle-of-the-road API, you will be happy as happy can be because you spent less on your house. What you won’t get is specially funded programs over and above the basic curriculum. No extra money for special educational programs or new Macs or LCD projectors in the room. You may also be less likely to get a good teacher next year cuz the good teachers at crappy schools are looking to move up.

I know what you are really getting at – Is there a school district bubble? Are people paying too much for homes in nice school district. With the state of the housing market (i.e. mid-level neighborhoods crashing and high-end neighborhoods hanging tough), there may very well be one, and I suppose it will pop when the high end goes.

From my experience, I would also say FLU’s comments about the Asians valuing the high API more than others is true. To them, the “educational experience” more about the curricula & prestige and less about the friends, relationships, fun, quality of life, etc.

I think the people at Harvard are smart enough to recognize a smart kid from a crappy school when they see one.

[sdduuuude]

OK. Interesting question.

Keep in mind:
1) All comments below assume a non-stabby school.
2) “Education experience” does not always mean readin’, ritin’ and ‘rithmetic. It has to do with how much fun they have learning, whether they make good friends, trust their teacher, want to continue staying in school, etc.
3) To a parent, putting your child in an environment where they are not happy is very, very bad.

Also don’t forget where the rubber meets the road – at the teacher. The one thing that will make your kids education experience better (again assuming a non-stabby school) is the teacher(s).

Whether I feel a high API will affect my kids’ careers or not is irrelevant. The question is – do people in general feel a high API will make their kids experience better. I think they do feel that way, and thus tehre is a market for it and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“A market for it” means parents with money. Parents with money mean parents dump cash into the school over and above the government funding. The PTA and school foundations supply additional or special teachers for science, art, PE, music, etc.

Not only do these programs make the education experience much better but they attract better teachers. They get better supplies, nicer rooms, higher-end equipment, etc. Teachers prefer to work in schools with more money. It’s a significanly more pleasant environment. That also means better teachers compete for these jobs and only the best get them.

Another comment I have heard is that SD city schools are not as community-oriented as some of the CV schools. All the people in CV schools live very close. People in San Diego city school district try to “choice” into schools that are better than the schools in their immediate neighborhood. Clairemont people try to get into PB and La Jolla or UTC. Parents tend to donate to the school with a tight-knit neighborhood influence.

Because of the money involved, I do think schools are playing games with the API. They don’t want to disappoint their donors, and they want to attract more. I suspect they all play games with it. In fact I know some that have. So there is some noise in the system but not enough to make a crappy school look great. I think the schools in the better neighborhods do it to save face and keep the money flowing.

Now, back to the teacher. If you get a great teacher in a non-stabby school with middle-of-the-road API, you will be happy as happy can be because you spent less on your house. What you won’t get is specially funded programs over and above the basic curriculum. No extra money for special educational programs or new Macs or LCD projectors in the room. You may also be less likely to get a good teacher next year cuz the good teachers at crappy schools are looking to move up.

I know what you are really getting at – Is there a school district bubble? Are people paying too much for homes in nice school district. With the state of the housing market (i.e. mid-level neighborhoods crashing and high-end neighborhoods hanging tough), there may very well be one, and I suppose it will pop when the high end goes.

From my experience, I would also say FLU’s comments about the Asians valuing the high API more than others is true. To them, the “educational experience” more about the curricula & prestige and less about the friends, relationships, fun, quality of life, etc.

I think the people at Harvard are smart enough to recognize a smart kid from a crappy school when they see one.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=wbk] We basically used the API’s because they were available, and it’s really hard to judge schools (much like picking a doctor or dentist).[/quote]

That’s a great point. You’d have to go in and meet the teachers, chat with parents (the reasonable ones) about the teachers, etc. in each school district to determine the quality.

This is an interesting concept:
http://www.greatschools.net/

[sdduuuude]

[quote=wbk] We basically used the API’s because they were available, and it’s really hard to judge schools (much like picking a doctor or dentist).[/quote]

That’s a great point. You’d have to go in and meet the teachers, chat with parents (the reasonable ones) about the teachers, etc. in each school district to determine the quality.

This is an interesting concept:
http://www.greatschools.net/

[sdduuuude]

[quote=wbk] We basically used the API’s because they were available, and it’s really hard to judge schools (much like picking a doctor or dentist).[/quote]

That’s a great point. You’d have to go in and meet the teachers, chat with parents (the reasonable ones) about the teachers, etc. in each school district to determine the quality.

This is an interesting concept:
http://www.greatschools.net/

[sdduuuude]

[quote=wbk] We basically used the API’s because they were available, and it’s really hard to judge schools (much like picking a doctor or dentist).[/quote]

That’s a great point. You’d have to go in and meet the teachers, chat with parents (the reasonable ones) about the teachers, etc. in each school district to determine the quality.

This is an interesting concept:
http://www.greatschools.net/

[sdduuuude]

[quote=wbk] We basically used the API’s because they were available, and it’s really hard to judge schools (much like picking a doctor or dentist).[/quote]

That’s a great point. You’d have to go in and meet the teachers, chat with parents (the reasonable ones) about the teachers, etc. in each school district to determine the quality.

This is an interesting concept:
http://www.greatschools.net/

[EconProf]

Anyone here bothered by the implications of this discussion on our future class divisions based on race and income? If the test scores now more starkly define school quality, and the savvy, higher income parents gravitate to these area, where does this leave the poorer blacks and latinos? They are stuck with the failing schools and impossible-to-fire teachers.
The NCLB program, for all its faults, at least attempted to measure performance, the first step toward improvement. The next step ought to be to both improve those measures and then implement real steps fundamentally reform ALL schools.
The real casualties here are the eager, bright inner city students and their parents who are trapped in failed neighborhood-based schools.

[EconProf]

Anyone here bothered by the implications of this discussion on our future class divisions based on race and income? If the test scores now more starkly define school quality, and the savvy, higher income parents gravitate to these area, where does this leave the poorer blacks and latinos? They are stuck with the failing schools and impossible-to-fire teachers.
The NCLB program, for all its faults, at least attempted to measure performance, the first step toward improvement. The next step ought to be to both improve those measures and then implement real steps fundamentally reform ALL schools.
The real casualties here are the eager, bright inner city students and their parents who are trapped in failed neighborhood-based schools.

[EconProf]

Anyone here bothered by the implications of this discussion on our future class divisions based on race and income? If the test scores now more starkly define school quality, and the savvy, higher income parents gravitate to these area, where does this leave the poorer blacks and latinos? They are stuck with the failing schools and impossible-to-fire teachers.
The NCLB program, for all its faults, at least attempted to measure performance, the first step toward improvement. The next step ought to be to both improve those measures and then implement real steps fundamentally reform ALL schools.
The real casualties here are the eager, bright inner city students and their parents who are trapped in failed neighborhood-based schools.

[EconProf]

Anyone here bothered by the implications of this discussion on our future class divisions based on race and income? If the test scores now more starkly define school quality, and the savvy, higher income parents gravitate to these area, where does this leave the poorer blacks and latinos? They are stuck with the failing schools and impossible-to-fire teachers.
The NCLB program, for all its faults, at least attempted to measure performance, the first step toward improvement. The next step ought to be to both improve those measures and then implement real steps fundamentally reform ALL schools.
The real casualties here are the eager, bright inner city students and their parents who are trapped in failed neighborhood-based schools.

[Author]

Posts