High School Rankings
- Thread starter IrvineCommuter_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
bk - Do you really not know why people without children and no intention of having children want to live in a “good school” neighborhood? Why don’t you ask instead of judging them? Try it. Ask one of the couples, over 40, no kids, why in the world they want to buy a home in a good school neighborhood when they do not have kids or intend to have kids.
Buyers purchased homes also filled out surveys indicating good school was the primary selection.
Valid point in protecting the resale of a plan one at Bowen Court at Woodbury that appeal to the empty nester and yet watching out for the family buyers with children for future resale.
The Logan school by Echo Park is facing low enrollment. The school needs to work with under-achievers because it needs enrollment to keep its door open. The homes by the Lake is getting too pricey and new residents are mostly gays and dinks. Families with kids can't afford to live there anymore. Should the school expel the hoodrats as a result could eventually close its door due to the lack of enrollment?
This is exactly where my sister in law moved from to S. Pasadena because the schools were declining. Despite all efforts from the neighborhood parents who wanted to send their kids to their local Echo Park School, they just couldn't get the type of cooperation that they wanted due to many of the issues you have cited. When faced with the choice of private school for 3 children or a more expensive house with good public schools, they packed up and moved.
Yes, this is true. But the old saying about a few bad apples definitely applies here. There are reasons why all of the schools can't apply the principles of the great schools we are discussing. They CAN'T kick kids out who don't follow the rules, neither can they kick out the bad parents. When you have the power to say "move on to your neighborhood school", you have the power to create a great school. I know that sounds harsh, but it's the reality I have seen during my 15 years in a fundamental school.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "up to speed". Please remember that in California, our standards our so high that very few kids can reach them without extraordinary parents AND a lot of extra help (like Kumon). Also remember that in the Asian countries (comparisons to countries like Japan were the catalyst for the California Standards), students regularly attend approximately 3 hours of extra education AFTER school for training in the basics. I guess it depends on what type of goals you have for your children. Personally, as an educator and a parent, I try to look at what is important for a successful and happy life, with the emphasis on the HAPPY part. Just for a moment, I wish we would all compare the types of things our children are learning at the age they are learning it, if you do, you will quickly realize that we are expecting so very much more of them than was expected of us.
I'm saying that the standards are exceptionally high (highest in the country), not that the students achievement is high. We have a very large population of English Language Learners compared to states that are at the top (ever tried to take a difficult test in a foreign language?). Consistently, in California our answers to our low achieving students is just to make the standards higher, even though they could never do the work when the standards were lower. The best example I can give you is 8th grade Algebra, I have students who can't add or multiply, yet the state demands that they be placed in an Algebra class, a class reserved for the top 8th grade students in the past. I believe in high standards, just not unrealistic standards with no actual path or plan to getting there. Also keep in mind that every state under NCLB hires whomever they want to write their tests according to the state's standards, the vast disparity between the tests given in this country is truly shocking. There is no national test that all students are taking so it is difficult to truly compare different state's performance.
awgee_IHB
New member
but the real reason they claim is good school thus to justify their $2mil+ spending
Again, how in the world do you know what someone's REAL reason is?
I do not doubt for a second that one of the factors in living in a nice neighborhood is the prestige, but I can not figure out why you think you know better than they, their motivations?
Again, how in the world do you know what someone's REAL reason is?
I do not doubt for a second that one of the factors in living in a nice neighborhood is the prestige, but I can not figure out why you think you know better than they, their motivations?
acpme_IHB
New member
i havent said a word about magnet schools nor was i referring to special science or art schools. yes, there are several LA-area schools in that top 100 list that are magnet or program-specific schools, which may or may not have admissions requirements. now... to be very specific... in addition to those schools, there are two 2 animo schools which made the list -- they are both charters but neither of which have admissions requirements and are located in south central (i guess the PC term is south LA) and inglewood, respectively. youre right that animo doesnt have any special science or art programs. that's not what they do. they're MO is to take the same resources that jefferson, inglewood, compton, watts, venice, and other struggling schools in the ghetto have, and somehow produce better results. the facts show that they are doing so.
it sounds like you're applying the situation with ochsa and special programs schools like that broadly across all charter schools. i believe what you're saying is: generally charters/magnets do a better job than traditional public schools because of factors such as specialized programs, admissions requirements, and parental involvement. i don't think anyone disagrees with that. but i am speaking specifically about LA county public schools, which are so terribly mismanaged, but for decades have cited excuses such as "our students are poor", "their parents don't speak english", or most often, "we don't have enough money!" these specific charter schools are proving that the district administrators and politicans are full of sh** by producing higher test scores and graduating students at twice the rate of district schools using the same resources.
i have no comment about any other charter or magnet schools, but merely pointing the special achievement that has been made by greendot to produce 2 schools that appear on the same list as the oxfords and whitneys of the world.
ANIMO LEADERSHIP HIGH
Magnet School Not Available
Charter School Yes
Admissions Type Open Enrollment
NCES Locale Type Suburb, Large Territory
Receives Title I Funding Yes
Minority Enrollment (% of total) 98.7%
Disadvantaged Student Enrollment (% of total) 90.0%
ANIMO OSCAR DE LA HOYA HIGH
Magnet School Not Available
Charter School Yes
Admissions Type Open Enrollment
NCES Locale Type City, Large Territory
Receives Title I Funding Yes
Minority Enrollment (% of total) 99.4%
Disadvantaged Student Enrollment (% of total) 96.3%
it sounds like you're applying the situation with ochsa and special programs schools like that broadly across all charter schools. i believe what you're saying is: generally charters/magnets do a better job than traditional public schools because of factors such as specialized programs, admissions requirements, and parental involvement. i don't think anyone disagrees with that. but i am speaking specifically about LA county public schools, which are so terribly mismanaged, but for decades have cited excuses such as "our students are poor", "their parents don't speak english", or most often, "we don't have enough money!" these specific charter schools are proving that the district administrators and politicans are full of sh** by producing higher test scores and graduating students at twice the rate of district schools using the same resources.
i have no comment about any other charter or magnet schools, but merely pointing the special achievement that has been made by greendot to produce 2 schools that appear on the same list as the oxfords and whitneys of the world.
ANIMO LEADERSHIP HIGH
Magnet School Not Available
Charter School Yes
Admissions Type Open Enrollment
NCES Locale Type Suburb, Large Territory
Receives Title I Funding Yes
Minority Enrollment (% of total) 98.7%
Disadvantaged Student Enrollment (% of total) 90.0%
ANIMO OSCAR DE LA HOYA HIGH
Magnet School Not Available
Charter School Yes
Admissions Type Open Enrollment
NCES Locale Type City, Large Territory
Receives Title I Funding Yes
Minority Enrollment (% of total) 99.4%
Disadvantaged Student Enrollment (% of total) 96.3%
bkshopr_IHB
New member
awgee said:
bk - Do you really not know why people without children and no intention of having children want to live in a “good school” neighborhood? Why don’t you ask instead of judging them? Try it. Ask one of the couples, over 40, no kids, why in the world they want to buy a home in a good school neighborhood when they do not have kids or intend to have kids.
Buyers purchased homes also filled out surveys indicating good school was the primary selection.
bkshopr_IHB
New member
I will exclude the white folks but just concentrate on Chinese who bought in the communities. The overwhelming reason for the high over price purchases are worth it because of the good schools. Even the knife catchers! Good schools but they are old folks beyond menopause. No one want to be criticized and when comment hit a liitle too close to the heart people get a little defensive.
SoCal78_IHB
New member
A little off topic, but I guess I don't see what's wrong with wanting to live in a prestigious area. If I was past menopause, I could still easily cite good school district as a reason to buy and mean it. Because while it may not be valuable to you -- it will be to your future buyer. It has everything to do with resale value. If resale value is an excuse, that is ok with me. White, yellow, or green... everyone wants a strong resale value.
bkshopr_IHB
New member
SoCal78 said:
Valid point in protecting the resale of a plan one at Bowen Court at Woodbury that appeal to the empty nester and yet watching out for the family buyers with children for future resale.
acpme_IHB
New member
btw, i do have acknowledge prejudices in that i have friends and family that work for both charter schools as well as for LAUSD and compton unified high schools.
i also remember going to high school in the 90s when oc was bankrupt. villa park high had a track that appeared to be made of concrete that gave all of us on the track team terrible shin splints. i would come home every day limping like an old man. classrooms in the early and late parts of the school yr were unbearable because there was no a/c. nothing ever got repaired.
and then i would hear from my brother who was teaching at compton high about brand new laptop computers for every student at his school, donated by the gates foundation. they sat in locked closets because most of the teachers had no idea how to use a computer, let alone integrate them into their teaching. another college friend who is at an LAUSD school through the TFA program who mentioned her school just purchased a new half million dollar projection system for their auditorium, but no arts program to speak of and no personnel who can operate the equipment even if they had a use for it. funding was never an issue for these schools. the more they underachieved, the more attention and money got pumped in from the state, feds, or private foundations. somehow they simply squandered it. hearing things like that totally pissed me off.
of the people i've known who teach/taught in inner city schools, none of them have every complained about working in those areas or the students. they wouldn't be in those places if they didn't want to be there. but like clockwork, all of them are trying or have moved on because they could not deal with the bureaucratic machinations inherent in the education system. those who have stayed in the field have moved to private organizations like charters.
the animo school experiment was designed to prove that even the worst LA public schools are redeemable. as calif residents we should be aware that a lot of our tax dollars have been wasted trying to salvage very badly run school districts. we should be holding school districts accountable for performance as we would corporations. the danger in simply writing off the success of the charter schools as simply "manufacturing" achievement through admissions is we'll overlook their successes and keep on with the status quo. this matters to all californians, not just LA residents, because the burden of education on the state will bleed us dry. oh wait, it's already happened.
in the next few yrs we will all start to hear more about the animo charter schools of los angeles. don't be surprised if you hear about steve barr, the founder of greendot public schools, in the future. he might be the next mayor. the charter school experiment in LA is already expanding. mayor villaraigosa has taken the ten worst performing high schools away from LAUSD to be administered by a group reporting to the office of the mayor. he basically formed a separate independent school district from LAUSD. another group of schools will be under the purview of loyola maramount's school of education. this program is unprecented and has the support of former mayor riordan and many private groups heavily involved with education philanthropy such as the eli broad foundation. once there are dozens of these schools in the disadvantaged areas being managed externally from the district, folks aren't going to be able to say the charters were simply cherry-picking good students.
i also remember going to high school in the 90s when oc was bankrupt. villa park high had a track that appeared to be made of concrete that gave all of us on the track team terrible shin splints. i would come home every day limping like an old man. classrooms in the early and late parts of the school yr were unbearable because there was no a/c. nothing ever got repaired.
and then i would hear from my brother who was teaching at compton high about brand new laptop computers for every student at his school, donated by the gates foundation. they sat in locked closets because most of the teachers had no idea how to use a computer, let alone integrate them into their teaching. another college friend who is at an LAUSD school through the TFA program who mentioned her school just purchased a new half million dollar projection system for their auditorium, but no arts program to speak of and no personnel who can operate the equipment even if they had a use for it. funding was never an issue for these schools. the more they underachieved, the more attention and money got pumped in from the state, feds, or private foundations. somehow they simply squandered it. hearing things like that totally pissed me off.
of the people i've known who teach/taught in inner city schools, none of them have every complained about working in those areas or the students. they wouldn't be in those places if they didn't want to be there. but like clockwork, all of them are trying or have moved on because they could not deal with the bureaucratic machinations inherent in the education system. those who have stayed in the field have moved to private organizations like charters.
the animo school experiment was designed to prove that even the worst LA public schools are redeemable. as calif residents we should be aware that a lot of our tax dollars have been wasted trying to salvage very badly run school districts. we should be holding school districts accountable for performance as we would corporations. the danger in simply writing off the success of the charter schools as simply "manufacturing" achievement through admissions is we'll overlook their successes and keep on with the status quo. this matters to all californians, not just LA residents, because the burden of education on the state will bleed us dry. oh wait, it's already happened.
in the next few yrs we will all start to hear more about the animo charter schools of los angeles. don't be surprised if you hear about steve barr, the founder of greendot public schools, in the future. he might be the next mayor. the charter school experiment in LA is already expanding. mayor villaraigosa has taken the ten worst performing high schools away from LAUSD to be administered by a group reporting to the office of the mayor. he basically formed a separate independent school district from LAUSD. another group of schools will be under the purview of loyola maramount's school of education. this program is unprecented and has the support of former mayor riordan and many private groups heavily involved with education philanthropy such as the eli broad foundation. once there are dozens of these schools in the disadvantaged areas being managed externally from the district, folks aren't going to be able to say the charters were simply cherry-picking good students.
SoCal78_IHB
New member
.
bkshopr_IHB
New member
No Acpme you are wrong. The Animo schools in LA ghettos are doing well and beat the Irvine schools because most Chinese dropped off their kids there everyday on their way to Monterey Park for dim sum. This is the only reason why Irvine schools slipped.
tmare_IHB
New member
I'm getting a bit confused with who is arguing and what their point is.
I will summarize:
All schools that do well have one or more of the following things in common:
1. They only allow students who already have high scores in.
2. They allow anyone to enroll, BUT require extra work from both parents and students to maintain attendance.
3. Students come from an area where parents are well-educated (and consequently, usually wealthy).
The schools in the #2 category DO have success with low income students, it comes with much more work on everyone's part.
I will summarize:
All schools that do well have one or more of the following things in common:
1. They only allow students who already have high scores in.
2. They allow anyone to enroll, BUT require extra work from both parents and students to maintain attendance.
3. Students come from an area where parents are well-educated (and consequently, usually wealthy).
The schools in the #2 category DO have success with low income students, it comes with much more work on everyone's part.
acpme_IHB
New member
right... the charters i'm referring to fall under category #2. the question is, why can't all schools simply do that instead of allowing students fall through the cracks? parents who know what their kids are doing in school, students who are actually required to be in class and on time, and schools that are unafraid to demand those things? is that such a crazy idea?
in fact, that experiment is currently underway as charter organizations take over schools directly instead of launching schools from scratch. the issue of limited space, lotteries, and student/parent selection bias is eliminated. now the charters are simply going to take over existing student bodies, but implement new administrative rules. admittedly, still too early to tell the results but things sure as heck weren't working the old way.
Shaping up – no thanks to LAUSD. Control, discipline and high expectations emerge at Green Dot campus that under L.A. Unified was a dysfunctional mess.
in fact, that experiment is currently underway as charter organizations take over schools directly instead of launching schools from scratch. the issue of limited space, lotteries, and student/parent selection bias is eliminated. now the charters are simply going to take over existing student bodies, but implement new administrative rules. admittedly, still too early to tell the results but things sure as heck weren't working the old way.
Shaping up – no thanks to LAUSD. Control, discipline and high expectations emerge at Green Dot campus that under L.A. Unified was a dysfunctional mess.
bkshopr_IHB
New member
acpme said:
The Logan school by Echo Park is facing low enrollment. The school needs to work with under-achievers because it needs enrollment to keep its door open. The homes by the Lake is getting too pricey and new residents are mostly gays and dinks. Families with kids can't afford to live there anymore. Should the school expel the hoodrats as a result could eventually close its door due to the lack of enrollment?
tmare_IHB
New member
bkshopr said:
This is exactly where my sister in law moved from to S. Pasadena because the schools were declining. Despite all efforts from the neighborhood parents who wanted to send their kids to their local Echo Park School, they just couldn't get the type of cooperation that they wanted due to many of the issues you have cited. When faced with the choice of private school for 3 children or a more expensive house with good public schools, they packed up and moved.
tmare_IHB
New member
awgee said:
Yes, this is true. But the old saying about a few bad apples definitely applies here. There are reasons why all of the schools can't apply the principles of the great schools we are discussing. They CAN'T kick kids out who don't follow the rules, neither can they kick out the bad parents. When you have the power to say "move on to your neighborhood school", you have the power to create a great school. I know that sounds harsh, but it's the reality I have seen during my 15 years in a fundamental school.
bkshopr_IHB
New member
Tmare, Awgee and Acpme,
Thank you for all your inputs. This thread has certainly been one that I find enlightening and worthy of our time. On one paticular subject I want to share with Awgee. I really do not mean to broad stroke home buyers with pretentious attitudes. Their thinking is diverse in choosing their property and I do understand. During my encounters I have come across many who did fall into my description of their reasoning. In my profession I refrain from working with clients with this type of attitude and even during the recession when work is scarce.
Thank you for all your inputs. This thread has certainly been one that I find enlightening and worthy of our time. On one paticular subject I want to share with Awgee. I really do not mean to broad stroke home buyers with pretentious attitudes. Their thinking is diverse in choosing their property and I do understand. During my encounters I have come across many who did fall into my description of their reasoning. In my profession I refrain from working with clients with this type of attitude and even during the recession when work is scarce.
tmare_IHB
New member
jhammons01 said:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "up to speed". Please remember that in California, our standards our so high that very few kids can reach them without extraordinary parents AND a lot of extra help (like Kumon). Also remember that in the Asian countries (comparisons to countries like Japan were the catalyst for the California Standards), students regularly attend approximately 3 hours of extra education AFTER school for training in the basics. I guess it depends on what type of goals you have for your children. Personally, as an educator and a parent, I try to look at what is important for a successful and happy life, with the emphasis on the HAPPY part. Just for a moment, I wish we would all compare the types of things our children are learning at the age they are learning it, if you do, you will quickly realize that we are expecting so very much more of them than was expected of us.
SoCal78_IHB
New member
tmare - can you please explain what you mean that in California our standards are so high? I am confused because whenever I look at rankings by state (you may have seen those "Smartest State" lists they come out with that goes by math and reading proficiency, test scores, spending per pupil, etc), California seems to consistently come in at around the bottom 5 or so compared to the rest of the states in our nation. If our standards are so high then why aren't we doing better compared to the rest of the country? Thank you.
tmare_IHB
New member
SoCal78 said:
I'm saying that the standards are exceptionally high (highest in the country), not that the students achievement is high. We have a very large population of English Language Learners compared to states that are at the top (ever tried to take a difficult test in a foreign language?). Consistently, in California our answers to our low achieving students is just to make the standards higher, even though they could never do the work when the standards were lower. The best example I can give you is 8th grade Algebra, I have students who can't add or multiply, yet the state demands that they be placed in an Algebra class, a class reserved for the top 8th grade students in the past. I believe in high standards, just not unrealistic standards with no actual path or plan to getting there. Also keep in mind that every state under NCLB hires whomever they want to write their tests according to the state's standards, the vast disparity between the tests given in this country is truly shocking. There is no national test that all students are taking so it is difficult to truly compare different state's performance.