Which Cleveland suburb for family and nature? (Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights: homes, school districts)

[Clevelander17]

The actual city of Shaker Heights has its own high rental areas, particularly along Chagrin Road and Van Aken west of Lee.

The swath of Cleveland that is in the Shaker Heights school district actually has the highest property taxes in the state because the bulk of property taxes go to school districts in Ohio.

[maxmodder]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I don't understand why people come to city forums to talk about their dream home in some god-awful, mind-numbingly dull exurban or rural area.

Where was the OP referring to wanting dull exurban?

[maxmodder]

Originally Posted by L2DB

I agree with you about where we disagree. I suppose I put more emphasis on the negative factors of something like differences in academic ability where I don't want my kids to be held back because other students need more help on something my kids may already know. In the increasingly group-work focused education system, carrying someone that may not contribute (whether because they can't or don't want to or both) is a detriment, IMO.

Countering the emphasizing the negativity, I see less benefit in the positive. I think we (people in general) tend to be friends with, work with, etc. people that are, for the most part, similar to us (from a socio-economic perspective). And, perhaps even more importantly, there's a basic societal standard for behavior that parents (at least, good ones) will instill in their children regardless of where kids go to school and who they're exposed to. Maybe going beyond that to a true understanding is what Shaker Heights parents are going for, but I guess I think that's more idealism than that it's actually likely to happen (these are kids/teenagers, remember). As an aside, I find it interesting (in a non-judgemental way) that there's rarely any concern for kids being exposed to other kids that may be better off socio-economically than them.

And that is where the fault lies. How does one strive to be better if they simply settle on gravitating towards others at a level they themselves are already at? It doesn't matter what socio-economic level someone is at, there is always room to learn and grow from the next guy that's a rung up higher on the socio-economic ladder.

This simple concept can be seen in kids who play sports in their local neighborhoods. One kid is playing with his friends in the same grade as he and is the best player, so he is over confident and cocky. Another kid chooses to play with his big brother's friends because they are better and it's more challenging. The end result is clear.

Kids look at their parents who they themselves adopt the traditional "well I'm going to settle for where I'm at because it puts me in my comfort zone and is less stressful" philosophy and shrugg their shoulders. No wonder why the child is not motivated.

The "group-work" systems is a joke because it forces the kids to work together. You don't force something. If a child want's to better themselves, they will seek the help and ask for it.

As jmv pointed out, not everyone growing up has the same resources, access, academic ability and family support. So how ever does a kid in this situation overcome the odds?

All it takes is a kid to not conform to the pussification of America philosophy that everyone is a winner and that no child need be left behind, and simply just try harder than the rest of his classmates. All he has to do is see the guy driving the exotic car with the suit on and from there it's just a matter of self motivation and finding the will to succeed if they want to have the same things later on in life.

Life is competitive and parents need to get their kids used to it. The children who are less fortunate that grow up to be successful are the ones who:

Don't have resources, they find them.
Don't have academic ability, they try harder.
No family support, they try even harder.
They work on things that will allow them to have a competitive edge despite being in a more unfortunate situation.

Simply put, said kid without the tools develops a chip on their shoulder, therefore becoming more driven at an exponential level relative to said child who had all the tools, and the end result is being higher on this said socio-economic ladder.

I find that a majority of leaders who are much higher on the socio-economic ladder who started with very little are much BETTER leaders, offer more insight, and therefore have a much overall better grasp on seeing the big picture than say Ivy League grads who got to where they were at because daddy was a successful business owner and had to constantly push junior along and provide the motivation that junior lacked. They are better VP's, make better business decisions, and are more focused. At least that has been my experience for the most part.

Who earns more respect? The guy who figured it out on their own and was less fortunate or the guy who was handed a silver spoon with daddy looking over his shoulder correcting his every mistake?

[L2DB]

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

That said, even if it were, do you have any data to reinforce your point? Or are you just assuming that the numbers will back up your belief that Beachwood is better at educating poor minorities (or wealthy whites/Asians, or whatever other socioeconomic group you want to compare) than Shaker Heights?

The test scores are public and broken down by different groups somewhere (state dept of ed website?). I know I've looked at it before and what I posted is what it showed.

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by L2DB

The test scores are public and broken down by different groups somewhere (state dept of ed website?). I know I've looked at it before and what I posted is what it showed.

What specifically were you looking at? And when was the last time you looked?

It's worth noting that this measurement data is based on one set of 2.5 hour exams where students have little or no "skin in the game." I know, I know, I'm not allowed to argue that point with because you got in your "in before standardized tests LOL" jibe, but for those uninitiated it's worth mentioning.

[L2DB]

High school:

Shaker Heights High School - Shaker Heights, Ohio - OH - School overview

Beachwood High School - Beachwood, Ohio - OH - School overview

Might need to go to dropdown of OGT by subgroup... or to test scores, then dropdown. I'm not sure where the link will take you exactly.

Middle school:

Shaker Heights Middle School - Shaker Heights, Ohio - OH - School overview

Beachwood Middle School - Beachwood, Ohio - OH - School overview

Same thing re: dropdown box.

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by L2DB

High school:

Shaker Heights High School - Shaker Heights, Ohio - OH - School overview

Beachwood High School - Beachwood, Ohio - OH - School overview

Might need to go to dropdown of OGT by subgroup... or to test scores, then dropdown. I'm not sure where the link will take you exactly.

Middle school:

Shaker Heights Middle School - Shaker Heights, Ohio - OH - School overview

Beachwood Middle School - Beachwood, Ohio - OH - School overview

Same thing re: dropdown box.

Based on ODE data, the passage rates of gifted students on 2012-2013 OAA/OGT exams in the Shaker Heights City School District and Beachwood City School District is practically identical.

Things get a little more interesting when looking at passage rates for disabled students in the two districts. Let's look at math, across the grades (B is for Beachwood, S is for Shaker Heights):

B3: 88.9%
B4: N/A
B5: 42.9%
B6: N/A
B7: 57.1%
B8: 89.5%
B10: 75.0%
B11: 70.0%
B12: N/A

S3: 53.8%
S4: 50.0%
S5: 43.8%
S6: 37.9%
S7: 40.6%
S8: 34.8%
S10: 52.3%
S11: 71.4%
S12: 65.5%

I'm not a huge fan of how data is presented on the ODE website, but I think that spending some time looking through it can be instructive. The assumption that Beachwood is definitively doing better than Shaker Heights at educating students on the margins (i.e. those with disabilities, those that are economically-disadvantaged, or those that are gifted) appears to be dubious at best. After spending more time than I probably should have looking over some data, I feel comfortable in reverting back to my original claim that much of what allows a district like Beachwood to appear to be superior to a district like Shaker Heights is overwhelmingly based on demographic "advantages" and less so on anything the schools themselves are doing.


Reports Home ODE iLRC Power User Reports

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I still think it's boring to read people's various posts about suburbs in a CITY forum. Just my opinion.

If you leave the forums and go to the main part of City-Data.com, you will find that you can look up stats for cities and their suburbs. That tells me this site wasn't intended to be solely about cities themselves, but was intended to also include the wider metro areas.

A few super-large cities (Chicago, for example) have two forums on this site: one for discussing the city proper, and a second for discussing the suburbs. In those cases, it appears to be because those metro areas take up unwieldy amounts of territory, and there's an awful lot of forum traffic in terms of new threads started, etc., so it was broken down that way for better ease of use. Forums for other cities, like Cleveland, have less traffic overall, so city and suburbs are discussed in the same forum. At least that's my take.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by andrew61

If you leave the forums and go to the main part of City-Data.com, you will find that you can look up stats for cities and their suburbs. That tells me this site wasn't intended to be solely about cities themselves, but was intended to also include the wider metro areas.

A few super-large cities (Chicago, for example) have two forums on this site: one for discussing the city proper, and a second for discussing the suburbs. In those cases, it appears to be because those metro areas take up unwieldy amounts of territory, and there's an awful lot of forum traffic in terms of new threads started, etc., so it was broken down that way for better ease of use. Forums for other cities, like Cleveland, have less traffic overall, so city and suburbs are discussed in the same forum. At least that's my take.

That's true. But can you blame me for getting sick of hearing about places like Brecksville and Avon?

[L2DB]

Pages - District-Report

Pages - District-Report