Which high school is better?

Overall I feel that the newer schools have a positive effect on education. They might be able to attract "better" teachers and the new technologies allow the student to expand their capabilities. Beckman has an Olympic-sized pool so its students/swimming team have much greater access for practice. It has computers and flat screens everywhere so learning can be more efficient. Take those 2 examples and extend them to other areas such as arts, labs and you can have a positive cumulative effect on the student body. One of my kids went to Foothill for 1 year and then transferred to Beckman and I think it turned out to be a better place for her.





k.o., I went to a predominantly minority-dominated and poor high school on the East Coast but I turned out OK too. Individually we can fight ourself out of poverty or a bad environment through hard work and determination but I have a feeling that most of my high school classmates didn't do as well.





IPO, I have mentioned this before on another thread. Multi-cultural is fine and dandy but the gap between the rich and poor students is so wide at some of the Tustin schools that it can be a big problem. If I had my choice, I would have sent my kids to Northwood HS where you still have the racial diversity (admittedly mostly just between the Asian and white kids) but without the problems of rich and poor kids.
 
I'm a firm believer that any student, if they are so motivated, can get a good education at any school. However, I would also say that yes new facilities play a part in attracting kids and teachers (including good athletes), so they are certainly a plus - apart from the fact that it's just plain nicer to go to a school that has better technology and equipment.





For instance, when Aliso Niguel opened it drew a bunch of the students that would have gone to Dana Hills, including some good students and athletes. Same thing at Northwood and Tesoro when those places opened.
 
Let me set up a scenario, ok? Let's say you have four kids. If you let them go to a Santa Ana school, there is a likelihood that three of them will graduate and one of them will go on to college. Whereas if they went to an Irvine school, it is more likely than all four will graduate and two will go on to college. In any case, the friends that they make in Irvine will more likely be successful than the friends they'll make in Santa Ana. I know that in an individual case, a student can succeed under any condition. But as a whole or a group, your odds of failure is greater at an underperforming school. When I have multiple kids, I would definitely want them to attend schools in Irvine, Newport, Huntington, or Fountain Valley. I would avoid schools in Tustin, Costa Mesa, Orange, and Santa Ana. If I had one kid, I'm pretty sure he can excel anywhere. But with multiple kids, I fear I might not be a strong enough influence.
 
hs_teacher: Since you have sub'd at various districts, do you have any opinions on Aliso Viejo schools?



(Aliso Viejo is our second choice to Irvine.)
 
>If you let them go to a Santa Ana school, there is a likelihood that three of them will graduate and one of them will go on to college. Whereas if they went to an Irvine school, it is more likely than all four will graduate and two will go on to college.





That's patently absurd. Success in school depends more on what happens at home than what happens in school. The fact of the matter is that kids are in school for about 1/3 of the day for a little more 1/2 the days in a year. Therefore, they spend about 1/6tth of the time between the age of 5 and 18 in public schools, and 5/6th of the time in an environment created by their parents.





What parents do will always be FAR more important than what schools do.
 
<p>I somewhat agree with you WINEX. But if your kids go to school in Santa Ana, what are the odds of them hanging out with bad kids? Would that be the same if they attended a school in Irvine? Parents are definitely very influential, but who do kids smoke with, do drugs with, drink alcohol with, or do other high risk activities with? Certainly not with their parents, I would hope. By the way WINEX, kids are at school for 1/2 their waking hours and close to 3/4 of the total weeks in a year.</p>

<p>Kayo, as for Aliso Viejo, I don't have any experience. All I know is that when I was at schools in Newport, Irvine, Huntington, and Fountain Valley, there were a lot of kids who were very active in academics, sports, and clubs. I would really like to one day have my kids be in that environment. Whereas, when I was at schools in Orange, Tustin, Costa Mesa, and Garden Grove, there were many more kids just struggling through school/life. I definitely feel for them, but it's clearly not the ideal environment.</p>

<p>I am certain that there are many students who excel in underperforming schools. But there are many more who are exposed to drugs, alcohol, violence, gangs, and teenage pregnancies.</p>
 
HS_TEACHER, first a couple of points of clarifications and/or questions, then back to the point at hand. First let me state that I am single and have no kids. Statements about the duration of the school day and year are based on memory. I last attended public school in 1980, and it was in another state.





With that out of the way, you will note that I referred to 1/3 of the day, not their waking hours. So I believe we are both talking about 8 hour school days. Is that accurate for the school system here? Secondly, when I referred to the number of school days being a little over half of the days in the year, my numbers were based on memory, but using the following assumptions:





Summer - 3 months or 25% of the entire year.


Weekends - 28% of the 9 months of school attendance or the equivalent of 2.52 months of the remaining 9


Various holidays and pseudo holidays - The standard 11 Federal holidays, 1 week for spring break, 2 additional weeks for an extended Christmas/New Years vacation. Add these up, and you get 23 days (give or take a few based on fuzziness of my memory and additional holidays I may not have accounted) Assuming 9 months = 275 days, this is 8.4% of the school "year". or .754 months.





Looking at the rough numbers ( 3 months summer vacation+ 2.52 months of weekends outside of summer + .754 months of other vacations/holidays) = 6.274 months of no school. That translates to about 191 days of no school and 174 days of school in a given year. So really, schools have your kids for less than half the year, and for about 1/3 of the day during that time.





Are my numbers off?





Now back to my original point.





Good parenting can offset the influence of bad friends and poor teachers. In my case, my parents divorced when I was about 10 and my mother got custody of my brother and I. Without going into details, my mother should have never been allowed to have kids. I went to a different school every year of public school except for 7th and 8th grade. I ended up dropping out of school after 10th grade because I had to work if I wanted to eat. But even though I am a high school dropout and have a GED, I also have an MBA. (and an undergraduate degree in Computer Information Systems)





The reason I turned out the way I did is very clear to me. The time I spent as a child with my father gave me the background and attitude that I needed to achieve things in life. The lessons I learned were strong enough to take me through a bad environment.





Simply put,, what happens at home is far more important than anything that happens in public school.
 
<p>I agree, the home life is more influential than the school life. But how do you explain siblings who drop out of highschools with siblings who go on to college - even though they have the same family situation?</p>

<p>As for your numbers, they are accurate, but they are a little skewed. I think that saying that kids spend 1/2 their day at school makes more practical sense. You really can't count sleep. As for the number of weeks, I just calculated 185 school days a year divided by 5 days/week then divided it over 52 weeks in a year. I omitted weekends. That is, if you have a full time job, do you say that you only work 70% or 3/4 a year?</p>

<p>Personally, I grew up in Garden Grove. I know what it's like to go to a bad school. But many of my friends have become very successful. </p>

<p>But I also know that the school, as a whole, has many who didn't do so well.</p>
 
winex... i hear what you are saying and agree with you... but to give you an example of what HST is saying. i grew up in a very poor area of the san gabriel valley. always got in trouble... mostly because of the friends i had, basically if you didn't want to get jumped or beat up for no good reason, you had to be a part of a gang, for protection. my parents finally had enough and we moved into a better neighborhood when i was in the 8th grade. it was a whole new world when the people i was surrounded with took school seriously and i did not have to put up a front. my grades improved drastically... and I ended up going to a good school... now i am doing well, blah, blah, etc, etc. Thing is, during my senior year of high school, I bumped into this one guy I knew who happen to be at the same tennis tournament i was at and when we chatted, i found out that some of the guys were either dead, in jail or had dropped out of school. i wonder what would have happened to me if i had continued to live in that neighborhood.
 
>But how do you explain siblings who drop out of highschools with siblings who go on to college - even though they have the same family situation?





It's really quite simple. The statement that all men are created equal refers to opportunity, not ability. Being raised right is important, and so are individual genetics. Whether you go to Uni High or not isn't so important.





As far as my numbers are concerned, again, I am referring to the portion of time that schools have control over kids versus parents have control over kids. Good parents don't take weekends and holidays off...
 
HS_TEACHER, doesn't that depend on whether or not both parents work? (Granted, if the Federal government were to respect the 10th amendment, taxes would be low enough that there would be more one income families.)





But let's put aside all nitpicking for a moment here. In various threads where "prestigious" high schools are mention, one often quoted statistics is the percentage of Asian students attending "good" schools tends to be above average. (Note: This is the perception I have developed from reading this forum. But it should be noted that I am a disinterested observer. Not only do I not have kids, but I'm not Asian, so there is no false pride to be gained from a piece of trivia like that)





While I hate stereotypes, there are certain cultural differences among various demographic groups that can't be ignored. One of those cultural differences is related to the emphasis on education that seems to be common in Asian families. I believe that a life long emphasis on learning serves these families well and that the kids at Uni High would do well even if they went to Matre de High (Shudder the thought!) or if they ended up becoming lowly high school dropouts like me.





Again, what happens outside of school is far more important than anything that happens in public school.
 
Villagepeople, I don't know San Gabriel valley, so the direct reference is lost on me. However, I did grow up on the wrong side of the tracks myself. Even though I am a generation older than the current crop of kids in high school, there were still gangs and drugs when I was growing up. I hung around a rough crowd when I was going to school, but never joined a gang. And before I dropped out, I did well in school.





Call me old fashioned if you would like, but I think that you are more likely to raise kids who will do well in life if you are more concerned about raising them right than you are about working long enough hours to afford a house in a neighborhood that feeds Uni High.
 
Did anyone read today's blog? IHB attacked the Tustin School District again. Doesn't IHB know that Beckman High is one of the best facility in the OC - and it's still located in Irvine? It has an olympic sized pool. And it draws students from the Tustin Ranch area - a highly affluent neighborhood in the 92782 across from and more pricey than West Irvine. It's appalling when people attack Tustin without realizing how incorrect their statements are. Yes, 80% of Tustin is not on par with Irvine - the 92780. But the other 20% - the 92782 - is wealthier than much of Irvine.
 
D'oh! That's what I get for trying to sound like a local. I'll bet it's obvious to everyone that I'm really a displaced Arizonan.
 
hs_teacher, I agree with you about Beckman. I also think highly of Foothill. Both are California Distinguished Schools and to me they compare well with Irvine schools. Both of my kids attended Beckman/Foothill so I have personal knowledge. If anyone has doubts, please check out their respective test scores. Tustin High is the one that trails behind. It's a good school but not a great school IMO (based on its test score).





Winex, I commend you for rising above a bad environment but I afraid that cases like yours (and mine) are more of the exceptions than the rule.
 
Troy in Fullerton, Los Alamito in Roosmoor , El Camino in Thousand Oaks, School of the Arts in Santa Ana are top ranking outside of Tustin and Irvine. These school are mostly White students.
 
If you combine the 11.7 % to the 29.4% you may have 40% possibly white population. Even if the White population were in the mid 30% that is considered high considering the shrinking population of White. Considering the success of these schools White population in the 30% IMO is much higher than the norm. I did not know the Asian population at Troy has surpassed White already. That further validate Asian buyers are attracted to communities with good schools outside of Tustin/Irvine. Their emphasis on academic is high on their list. Thank you for this update.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top