Anonymous wrote:I'll bite.
We actually choose a lower rated school (according to great schools) b/c we wanted immersion. When I reviewed the stats for a child in my DS's demographic, he was just as likely to well at the school we enrolled him in as in the other more highly rated school.
I don't think I am sacrificing anything and he is gaining the ability to speak a second language which he could not get at home.
I am not sure what thread you are referencing but I am sure there are parents who would rather their child be in a lower rated school than being the "only" diverse child in their classroom.
Also remember the lower rating does not always mean a lower level of instruction. It simply means there are more kid struggling academically which reflects in the test scores and school rating. As long as there is differentiation it is likely that a smart child in a lower rated school really isn't missing much from an education perspective and that a struggling child probably has acces to more resources.
As a teacher I don't mind if my kid is surrounded by students who need more academic help. Sometimes the kids who struggle academically but work hard and are well behaved are great role models for the 'smarter kids'.
I do care though if a school has too many discipline issues. And that's where the problem is - lower rating schools are not avoided because they have too many 'dumb kids'. They are avoided because there are too many hellions in the school.
I prefer teaching the kids at my school (i work in a mc/umc very white district outside the dmv area) in small intervention groups who need additional math or ELA help. My 'low level' kids for the most part are pretty well behaved, just need additional focused instruction.
If they were poorly behaved assholes, then I would not like them so much.
maybe there should be a split in 'ratings'. a rating to really measure academic quality of the student body separate from the disciplinary quality of the student body.