Sabre Springs vs Scripps Ranch schools

[asragov]

Very unscientifically, SRHS seems to have more students going to very competitive colleges than Mt. Carmel. The API at SRHS may be pulled down by the buses, but the higher end of achievement at SRHS seems to be higher. Again, this is totally anecdotally based. It is amazing how many of these private schools are cheaper than sending children to public universities (assuming that they can get in), such as:

http://www.yale.edu/admit/freshmen/financial_aid/yale_cuts_costs.html

[UCGal]

[quote=gn][quote=UCGal]The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc… and not want the hassles.

The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.[/quote]

UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?[/quote]

The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide – differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math – have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they’re weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be – of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn’t be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don’t need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that’s a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum – including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.

The second point – funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It’s up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that’s the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics – like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example – not saying this is actually happening.)

To have a GATE program – the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.

So… the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they’d prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.

As I said – it’s not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into… but it’s worth investigating.

[UCGal]

[quote=gn][quote=UCGal]The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc… and not want the hassles.

The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.[/quote]

UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?[/quote]

The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide – differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math – have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they’re weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be – of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn’t be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don’t need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that’s a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum – including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.

The second point – funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It’s up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that’s the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics – like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example – not saying this is actually happening.)

To have a GATE program – the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.

So… the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they’d prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.

As I said – it’s not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into… but it’s worth investigating.

[UCGal]

[quote=gn][quote=UCGal]The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc… and not want the hassles.

The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.[/quote]

UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?[/quote]

The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide – differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math – have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they’re weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be – of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn’t be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don’t need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that’s a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum – including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.

The second point – funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It’s up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that’s the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics – like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example – not saying this is actually happening.)

To have a GATE program – the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.

So… the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they’d prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.

As I said – it’s not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into… but it’s worth investigating.

[UCGal]

[quote=gn][quote=UCGal]The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc… and not want the hassles.

The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.[/quote]

UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?[/quote]

The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide – differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math – have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they’re weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be – of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn’t be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don’t need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that’s a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum – including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.

The second point – funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It’s up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that’s the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics – like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example – not saying this is actually happening.)

To have a GATE program – the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.

So… the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they’d prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.

As I said – it’s not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into… but it’s worth investigating.

[UCGal]

[quote=gn][quote=UCGal]The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc… and not want the hassles.

The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.[/quote]

UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?[/quote]

The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide – differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math – have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they’re weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be – of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn’t be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don’t need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that’s a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum – including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.

The second point – funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It’s up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that’s the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics – like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example – not saying this is actually happening.)

To have a GATE program – the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.

So… the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they’d prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.

As I said – it’s not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into… but it’s worth investigating.

[UCGal]

On the subject of demographics…

Not all 40-59 year olds have kids in high school or older.

I’m a “senior mom” – 48 with a 6yo and 8yo. And while I’m one of the older moms at Curie – I have plenty of company of moms and dads in their early to mid 40’s with kids in 1st grade.

I have quite a few friends in Scripps Ranch. Several are in the same boat as me – older moms with young kids.

You can’t determine the age of the child based strictly on assumptions that parents reproduce only in their late 20’s early 30’s… too many exceptions to that rule. Even more so when the parents are highly educated with strong careers.

[UCGal]

On the subject of demographics…

Not all 40-59 year olds have kids in high school or older.

I’m a “senior mom” – 48 with a 6yo and 8yo. And while I’m one of the older moms at Curie – I have plenty of company of moms and dads in their early to mid 40’s with kids in 1st grade.

I have quite a few friends in Scripps Ranch. Several are in the same boat as me – older moms with young kids.

You can’t determine the age of the child based strictly on assumptions that parents reproduce only in their late 20’s early 30’s… too many exceptions to that rule. Even more so when the parents are highly educated with strong careers.

[UCGal]

On the subject of demographics…

Not all 40-59 year olds have kids in high school or older.

I’m a “senior mom” – 48 with a 6yo and 8yo. And while I’m one of the older moms at Curie – I have plenty of company of moms and dads in their early to mid 40’s with kids in 1st grade.

I have quite a few friends in Scripps Ranch. Several are in the same boat as me – older moms with young kids.

You can’t determine the age of the child based strictly on assumptions that parents reproduce only in their late 20’s early 30’s… too many exceptions to that rule. Even more so when the parents are highly educated with strong careers.

[UCGal]

On the subject of demographics…

Not all 40-59 year olds have kids in high school or older.

I’m a “senior mom” – 48 with a 6yo and 8yo. And while I’m one of the older moms at Curie – I have plenty of company of moms and dads in their early to mid 40’s with kids in 1st grade.

I have quite a few friends in Scripps Ranch. Several are in the same boat as me – older moms with young kids.

You can’t determine the age of the child based strictly on assumptions that parents reproduce only in their late 20’s early 30’s… too many exceptions to that rule. Even more so when the parents are highly educated with strong careers.

[UCGal]

On the subject of demographics…

Not all 40-59 year olds have kids in high school or older.

I’m a “senior mom” – 48 with a 6yo and 8yo. And while I’m one of the older moms at Curie – I have plenty of company of moms and dads in their early to mid 40’s with kids in 1st grade.

I have quite a few friends in Scripps Ranch. Several are in the same boat as me – older moms with young kids.

You can’t determine the age of the child based strictly on assumptions that parents reproduce only in their late 20’s early 30’s… too many exceptions to that rule. Even more so when the parents are highly educated with strong careers.

[permabear]

Pretty much every well-to-do zipcode has this demographic problem. It’s not isolated to Scripps Ranch. For example, 92127 – home of 4S Ranch, Del Sur, and Santaluz – has a very similar shift despite all the new homes:

http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/est/zip92127est.pdf

So it’s not sound analysis on the part of ocrenter to say that there will be a sudden massive influx of bussed kids to Scripps Ranch High but not other places. All these neighborhoods have a demographic dip for people in their 30’s.

In fact, the real reasons are twofold. First, there was a massive dip in births in the 70’s due to the economic recession. This is very well-documented, and is commonly referred to as the “baby bust”:

http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/753/american-birth-rate-decline-linked-to-recession

Second, the point about housing still being unaffordable is still true. I make over 200k a year, but according to traditional calculators I can only afford a home up to 1M (and that’s with 200k cash down). Any place for us to move up would be a stretch. Which means many people are still stretching.

There’s still a lot of air to be let out of this balloon.

[permabear]

Pretty much every well-to-do zipcode has this demographic problem. It’s not isolated to Scripps Ranch. For example, 92127 – home of 4S Ranch, Del Sur, and Santaluz – has a very similar shift despite all the new homes:

http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/est/zip92127est.pdf

So it’s not sound analysis on the part of ocrenter to say that there will be a sudden massive influx of bussed kids to Scripps Ranch High but not other places. All these neighborhoods have a demographic dip for people in their 30’s.

In fact, the real reasons are twofold. First, there was a massive dip in births in the 70’s due to the economic recession. This is very well-documented, and is commonly referred to as the “baby bust”:

http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/753/american-birth-rate-decline-linked-to-recession

Second, the point about housing still being unaffordable is still true. I make over 200k a year, but according to traditional calculators I can only afford a home up to 1M (and that’s with 200k cash down). Any place for us to move up would be a stretch. Which means many people are still stretching.

There’s still a lot of air to be let out of this balloon.

[permabear]

Pretty much every well-to-do zipcode has this demographic problem. It’s not isolated to Scripps Ranch. For example, 92127 – home of 4S Ranch, Del Sur, and Santaluz – has a very similar shift despite all the new homes:

http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/est/zip92127est.pdf

So it’s not sound analysis on the part of ocrenter to say that there will be a sudden massive influx of bussed kids to Scripps Ranch High but not other places. All these neighborhoods have a demographic dip for people in their 30’s.

In fact, the real reasons are twofold. First, there was a massive dip in births in the 70’s due to the economic recession. This is very well-documented, and is commonly referred to as the “baby bust”:

http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/753/american-birth-rate-decline-linked-to-recession

Second, the point about housing still being unaffordable is still true. I make over 200k a year, but according to traditional calculators I can only afford a home up to 1M (and that’s with 200k cash down). Any place for us to move up would be a stretch. Which means many people are still stretching.

There’s still a lot of air to be let out of this balloon.

[permabear]

Pretty much every well-to-do zipcode has this demographic problem. It’s not isolated to Scripps Ranch. For example, 92127 – home of 4S Ranch, Del Sur, and Santaluz – has a very similar shift despite all the new homes:

http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/est/zip92127est.pdf

So it’s not sound analysis on the part of ocrenter to say that there will be a sudden massive influx of bussed kids to Scripps Ranch High but not other places. All these neighborhoods have a demographic dip for people in their 30’s.

In fact, the real reasons are twofold. First, there was a massive dip in births in the 70’s due to the economic recession. This is very well-documented, and is commonly referred to as the “baby bust”:

http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/753/american-birth-rate-decline-linked-to-recession

Second, the point about housing still being unaffordable is still true. I make over 200k a year, but according to traditional calculators I can only afford a home up to 1M (and that’s with 200k cash down). Any place for us to move up would be a stretch. Which means many people are still stretching.

There’s still a lot of air to be let out of this balloon.

[Author]

Posts