Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
Gifted students can pass a test? Wow, shocking. And not to sound callous, but I view the disabled subgroup as mostly separate and not really having an impact on the average student. Show me the same table for black, white, and economically disadvantaged (or show me where you got it and I'll compile it - I can't seem to make the ODE site show me that info).
Gifted students can pass a test? Wow, shocking. And not to sound callous, but I view the disabled subgroup as mostly separate and not really having an impact on the average student. Show me the same table for black, white, and economically disadvantaged (or show me where you got it and I'll compile it - I can't seem to make the ODE site show me that info).
I posted the link where data can be disaggregated. (The power users report.)
My suspicion is that economically-disadvantaged students in Beachwood will score better than their "peers" in Shaker Heights in part because there are far fewer of them (proportionally) than in Shaker Heights, and the basis for defining poverty is pretty loose (i.e. you're going to find a higher percentage of desperately poor students in Shaker Heights than in Beachwood). There are also potential peer effects (and this is one advantage of having a wealthier/healthier student body) meaning when you haven't hit a tipping point for percent of students in poverty that the few poor students that are enrolled do benefit from being around students who are not in that demographic. But you don't get those peer effects unless you can somehow keep those barriers to entry into the school.
In summation, the point I'm trying to make here is that there isn't much data to prove that Beachwood schools do a distinguishably better job at educating the students on the margins. I believe that's been your claim all along and I think there are far too many factors at play to support such an argument.
The disabled subgroup cannot be viewed as being "mostly separate," because these kids share classrooms with "regular ed" students in every school and district in the country according to Federal law. Furthermore, these students tend to (not always, but often) score lower on standardized tests than their peers without disabilities. Therefore you'll find that the proportion of these students (particularly ones with serious disabilities) also correlates pretty darn closely with a district's measurement rating.
I'll just go ahead and come clean here. I work in education and have been studying these issues for years. I think that there are serious problems with the rating system that Ohio (and many other states use). It's not a coincidence that the wealthiest and whitest (sorry, not going to be PC here) students tend to score higher than districts on the opposite end of the spectrum. This doesn't mean that one district is better than another, or provides a better education. It just means that it has a more favorable demographic.
"It's not a coincidence that the wealthiest and whitest (sorry, not going to be PC here) students tend to score higher than districts on the opposite end of the spectrum. This doesn't mean that one district is better than another, or provides a better education. It just means that it has a more favorable demographic."
Clevelander17 has hit the nail on the head with the statement above. Unfortunately, not many people bother to really understand what the school report card data reveals about a school district. I find most people look at the data to prove a preconceived notion they have about the quality of a school district and search to find the statistics to back that up. Thank you Clevelander17 for shedding light on what the state report card really tells us, and the fact that the evaluation system is tipped in favor of wealthy, white school districts.
I posted the link where data can be disaggregated. (The power users report.)
Thanks, I missed that before. Pretty powerful tool, IMO.
Quote:
The disabled subgroup cannot be viewed as being "mostly separate," because these kids share classrooms with "regular ed" students in every school and district in the country according to Federal law. Furthermore, these students tend to (not always, but often) score lower on standardized tests than their peers without disabilities. Therefore you'll find that the proportion of these students (particularly ones with serious disabilities) also correlates pretty darn closely with a district's measurement rating.
I didn't realize disabled students shared classrooms. Seems odd to me, but maybe we're using different definitions of disabled.
Quote:
I'll just go ahead and come clean here. I work in education and have been studying these issues for years.
Just for the sake of transparency (and because I'm curious), do you work in the SH school district or are you part of some education-based think tank or something? FWIW, my wife works in an inner-city Cleveland school and I've been hearing about these issues for years.
Quote:
It's not a coincidence that the wealthiest and whitest (sorry, not going to be PC here) students tend to score higher than districts on the opposite end of the spectrum. This doesn't mean that one district is better than another, or provides a better education. It just means that it has a more favorable demographic.
But you can't separate the two. It sucks that that's the case, but that's reality. There are inherent advantages some districts have in terms of facilities and resources, but beyond that, it's a function of the student population in terms of work ethic, family stability/support/resources, school culture/behavior, etc. and the cumulative impact of these factors on the variables (i.e. teachers/staff). I'd argue that the teachers at a wealthy school are better than those in an inner city school, but I doubt the gap in their potential ability is as wide as it is in reality. Put the wealthy kids in the inner city school (without the current students, but with everything else the same) and they do a lot better than the students there now.
So, given these demographic realities and their effects, is the argument then that SH teachers, school culture, etc. are able to overcome their inherent demographic disadvantage to be at or above the overall quality level of other schools with less-challenging demographics? And perhaps more importantly, will they still be able to do so in 10-15 years when my kids are in high school?
I won't say exactly which one (other than it's not Cleveland Heights or Shaker Heights), but I do work in an integrated school district in one of Cleveland's inner-ring easternish suburbs. You can probably narrow it down based on that information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L2DB
But you can't separate the two. It sucks that that's the case, but that's reality. There are inherent advantages some districts have in terms of facilities and resources, but beyond that, it's a function of the student population in terms of work ethic, family stability/support/resources, school culture/behavior, etc. and the cumulative impact of these factors on the variables (i.e. teachers/staff). I'd argue that the teachers at a wealthy school are better than those in an inner city school, but I doubt the gap in their potential ability is as wide as it is in reality. Put the wealthy kids in the inner city school (without the current students, but with everything else the same) and they do a lot better than the students there now.
So, given these demographic realities and their effects, is the argument then that SH teachers, school culture, etc. are able to overcome their inherent demographic disadvantage to be at or above the overall quality level of other schools with less-challenging demographics? And perhaps more importantly, will they still be able to do so in 10-15 years when my kids are in high school?
I think I agree with most of the above commentary except for the statement in bold. That's another "dangerous" claim which I don't think even the best of data measures (that exist now) can back up. I can show you numerous studies that indicate that the latest trend for rating teachers (value-added) is correlated closely with student demographics.
In regards to Shaker Heights and overcoming the demographic disadvantage, my point all along is that they have and continue to do so, and it occurs in a number of ways, not the least of which is that the district "sorts" students in a manner in which those that are high-achievers will not be held back by the low-achievers. Building on that point, families with high-achieving students at Shaker Heights for the most part need not worry about any "overall" building score comparisons because that does not accurately reflect the experience for their individual student because of the aforementioned sorting.
Although I know that your question about what things will be like in 10-15 years at Shaker Heights High School is a hypothetical because I doubt there's any way your kids will be attending that school, I will tell you that I think that Beachwood High School will likely look a lot different at that point in time. In just the past ten years, Beachwood City School District has seen more than a 50% increase in the number of (non-Asian) minorities enrolled in its schools and gone from having a negligible number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds to having about 11% of its enrollment fitting that description. This is a trend that I believe will continue, though I think it may occur more slowly in Beachwood than it happened in its western neighbors. I don't know what the tipping point is, but Beachwood could be within a few decades of hitting it.
Definitely Shaker Heights. But as other said Chagrin Falls would work. Shaker Lakes are gorgeous. Not too far from Cleveland Metroparks Reservations. Easily get to Cleveland and downtown in 10 minutes. Beautiful homes along Shaker Lakes. Both are about 20 minutes from Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Kirtland or Pepper Pike are farther out but quieter and more nature places out there. But I suggest look around and you'll find what you what that way.
Definitely Shaker Heights. But as other said Chagrin Falls would work. Shaker Lakes are gorgeous. Not too far from Cleveland Metroparks Reservations. Easily get to Cleveland and downtown in 10 minutes. Beautiful homes along Shaker Lakes. Both are about 20 minutes from Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Kirtland or Pepper Pike are farther out but quieter and more nature places out there. But I suggest look around and you'll find what you what that way.
My gosh, by the logic of this thread, the Chinese and Japanese [who live in countries which are almost 100% Chinese and Japanese] must be utterly MISERABLE, dragging themselves through each day in desperate despondency that they will not behold any Caucasian or African faces that day.....utterly deprived of the Diversity now worshipped in America and Europe [but no place else on earth...] HORRORS !
My gosh, by the logic of this thread, the Chinese and Japanese [who live in countries which are almost 100% Chinese and Japanese] must be utterly MISERABLE, dragging themselves through each day in desperate despondency that they will not behold any Caucasian or African faces that day.....utterly deprived of the Diversity now worshipped in America and Europe [but no place else on earth...] HORRORS !
The Chinese government looks at diversity in a far different way than the U.S. There is something like 60 different ethnicities defined by the Chinese government, and the majority definitely discriminate against the minorities. Far more-so than in America. It's no skin off the Han Chinese's back, but look out if you are an Uyghur. You might just find your farm land cleared and handed over to a Han developer.
I agree that racial integration isn't necessary for success in schools. Success is far more correlated with socioeconomic factors. Unfortunately right now in this country, race is highly correlated with the socioeconomic factors that impact a person's education .
Avoid Shaker heights...The best metro park access is near the Mayfield area. Shaker nature parks are not like the 2000 acre north chagrin parks. They are smaller I think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
