Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:02 - I guess I beg to differ.

I bet if you really have to, you could sell your house and get a rental TH that feeds to one of the W schools. But that's so far-fetched, you won't even consider that as one of the choices. The way I see it, you made your "choice" - you decided what you have to give up is not worth what you may or may not be gaining.

I wouldn't move either. Just trying to point out we all have more choices than we are willing to acknowledge.

Let's look at the numbers. The median gross household income in Montgomery County is about $100,000. One-third of $100,000 is $33,333. $33,333 a year is $2,778 a month in rent. And half of households in Montgomery County have incomes lower than the median.

We may all have more choices than we are willing to acknowledge, but some of us have more more choices than others of us. To deny that there are lots of people who cannot afford to live in Bethesda or Potomac, no matter what they do, is to deny reality.

PP here. Also, it's no accident that there are lots of people who cannot afford to live in Bethesda or Potomac, no matter what they do. If anybody could choose to live in Bethesda or Potomac, then Bethesda and Potomac would be very different places, and Churchill and Whitman would be very different schools.

Anonymous wrote:10:02 - I guess I beg to differ.

I bet if you really have to, you could sell your house and get a rental TH that feeds to one of the W schools. But that's so far-fetched, you won't even consider that as one of the choices. The way I see it, you made your "choice" - you decided what you have to give up is not worth what you may or may not be gaining.

I wouldn't move either. Just trying to point out we all have more choices than we are willing to acknowledge.

Let's look at the numbers. The median gross household income in Montgomery County is about $100,000. One-third of $100,000 is $33,333. $33,333 a year is $2,778 a month in rent. And half of households in Montgomery County have incomes lower than the median.

We may all have more choices than we are willing to acknowledge, but some of us have more more choices than others of us. To deny that there are lots of people who cannot afford to live in Bethesda or Potomac, no matter what they do, is to deny reality.

As much as I don't want my kids surrounded by violent or disengaged kids, I don't want my kids surrounded by entitled kids, either. They are both "bad" to me. I know there is no HS here that has neither of these, so I pick one that has the least amount of both "bads".

Anonymous wrote:10:02 - I guess I beg to differ.

I bet if you really have to, you could sell your house and get a rental TH that feeds to one of the W schools. But that's so far-fetched, you won't even consider that as one of the choices. The way I see it, you made your "choice" - you decided what you have to give up is not worth what you may or may not be gaining.

I wouldn't move either. Just trying to point out we all have more choices than we are willing to acknowledge.

The problem with this is your kid who is not in a million plus home, going on fancy overseas vacations and wearing the finest (not second-hand) designer labels is not going to fit in with the other "entitled" kids-the parents will likely snub you and it will not be a fun experience for anyone. There is something to be said abot a sense of community-a community you fit in-I wouyld not want Whitman-and I would not want Wheaton.

Anonymous wrote:10:02 - I guess I beg to differ.

I bet if you really have to, you could sell your house and get a rental TH that feeds to one of the W schools. But that's so far-fetched, you won't even consider that as one of the choices. The way I see it, you made your "choice" - you decided what you have to give up is not worth what you may or may not be gaining.

I wouldn't move either. Just trying to point out we all have more choices than we are willing to acknowledge.

Not so. I know people who have done that.

10:02 - I guess I beg to differ.

I bet if you really have to, you could sell your house and get a rental TH that feeds to one of the W schools. But that's so far-fetched, you won't even consider that as one of the choices. The way I see it, you made your "choice" - you decided what you have to give up is not worth what you may or may not be gaining.

I wouldn't move either. Just trying to point out we all have more choices than we are willing to acknowledge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but I think you are making a silly (frankly stupid IMHO) distinction between school and student body. When people talk "good" schools or "bad" schools, they are talking about the quality of student body. So, in that sense, those two are the same.

I agree that when people talk about "good schools" and "bad schools", they are actually talking about the SES of the student body. (Not the "quality" of the student body, please. Affluent kids are not higher-quality than non-affluent kids.) But this is reductive thinking. We all know that there are schools with affluent students and lousy teachers and administrators, as well as schools with poor students and outstanding teachers and administrators. Which is the good school, and which is the bad one?

Given you can't measure precise quality of teachers or admin staff, you HAVE to assume the qualities of teachers and admin staff are "hit-and-miss". Even if school X has more good teachers than bad teachers (per parents' point of view which may or may not reflect the reality), there's no guarantee your DC will have those teachers. So, you worry about things that have "direct" effect on your kid - such as the student body.

And that's fine, but it doesn't negate the distinction between "good/bad school" and "affluent/non-affluent student body".

Once you start defining "good schools" vs. "bad schools" using metrics other than academic performance, it really becomes a personal choice (i.e., what value is important to you and your family?). Each maybe valid but all are very different. You need to pick the environment that "fits" your child and your value system. My two cents.

Academic performance is very tightly correlated to the SES of the student body. So if you're defining "good schools" vs. "bad schools" on academic performance, you're right back to defining "good schools" and "bad schools" on the SES of the parents of the students who go to those schools.

I think it's also important to point out that for very many people, it's NOT a personal choice. It's not like I could say, " Well, let's see - do Whitman or Churchill fit my child and my value system better, or do Blair or Magruder?" Whitman or Churchill are not a choice for me, because I can't afford to live in the Whitman or Churchill zones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but I think you are making a silly (frankly stupid IMHO) distinction between school and student body. When people talk "good" schools or "bad" schools, they are talking about the quality of student body. So, in that sense, those two are the same.

I agree that when people talk about "good schools" and "bad schools", they are actually talking about the SES of the student body. (Not the "quality" of the student body, please. Affluent kids are not higher-quality than non-affluent kids.) But this is reductive thinking. We all know that there are schools with affluent students and lousy teachers and administrators, as well as schools with poor students and outstanding teachers and administrators. Which is the good school, and which is the bad one?

Given you can't measure precise quality of teachers or admin staff, you HAVE to assume the qualities of teachers and admin staff are "hit-and-miss". Even if school X has more good teachers than bad teachers (per parents' point of view which may or may not reflect the reality), there's no guarantee your DC will have those teachers. So, you worry about things that have "direct" effect on your kid - such as the student body.

And that's fine, but it doesn't negate the distinction between "good/bad school" and "affluent/non-affluent student body".

Once you start defining "good schools" vs. "bad schools" using metrics other than academic performance, it really becomes a personal choice (i.e., what value is important to you and your family?). Each maybe valid but all are very different. You need to pick the environment that "fits" your child and your value system. My two cents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but I think you are making a silly (frankly stupid IMHO) distinction between school and student body. When people talk "good" schools or "bad" schools, they are talking about the quality of student body. So, in that sense, those two are the same.

I agree that when people talk about "good schools" and "bad schools", they are actually talking about the SES of the student body. (Not the "quality" of the student body, please. Affluent kids are not higher-quality than non-affluent kids.) But this is reductive thinking. We all know that there are schools with affluent students and lousy teachers and administrators, as well as schools with poor students and outstanding teachers and administrators. Which is the good school, and which is the bad one?

Given you can't measure precise quality of teachers or admin staff, you HAVE to assume the qualities of teachers and admin staff are "hit-and-miss". Even if school X has more good teachers than bad teachers (per parents' point of view which may or may not reflect the reality), there's no guarantee your DC will have those teachers. So, you worry about things that have "direct" effect on your kid - such as the student body.

And that's fine, but it doesn't negate the distinction between "good/bad school" and "affluent/non-affluent student body".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but I think you are making a silly (frankly stupid IMHO) distinction between school and student body. When people talk "good" schools or "bad" schools, they are talking about the quality of student body. So, in that sense, those two are the same.

I agree that when people talk about "good schools" and "bad schools", they are actually talking about the SES of the student body. (Not the "quality" of the student body, please. Affluent kids are not higher-quality than non-affluent kids.) But this is reductive thinking. We all know that there are schools with affluent students and lousy teachers and administrators, as well as schools with poor students and outstanding teachers and administrators. Which is the good school, and which is the bad one?

Given you can't measure precise quality of teachers or admin staff, you HAVE to assume the qualities of teachers and admin staff are "hit-and-miss". Even if school X has more good teachers than bad teachers (per parents' point of view which may or may not reflect the reality), there's no guarantee your DC will have those teachers. So, you worry about things that have "direct" affect on your kid - such as the student body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is all about the student body-a good teacher cannot effectively teach if the students are dealing/doing drugs, violent, unmotivated, disengaged and disruptive....there are less of these type of students at the "good" schools

Are there really fewer students dealing drugs and doing drugs at high schools with lots of poor students than at high schools with lots of rich students?

I would say so-or their money hides the consequenses of it better.

^^^whoops, wrong way. That should be: Are there really fewer students dealing drugs and doing drugs at high schools with lots of rich students than at high schools with lots of poor students?

Anonymous wrote:

It is all about the student body-a good teacher cannot effectively teach if the students are dealing/doing drugs, violent, unmotivated, disengaged and disruptive....there are less of these type of students at the "good" schools

Are there really fewer students dealing drugs and doing drugs at high schools with lots of poor students than at high schools with lots of rich students?

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but I think you are making a silly (frankly stupid IMHO) distinction between school and student body. When people talk "good" schools or "bad" schools, they are talking about the quality of student body. So, in that sense, those two are the same.

I agree that when people talk about "good schools" and "bad schools", they are actually talking about the SES of the student body. (Not the "quality" of the student body, please. Affluent kids are not higher-quality than non-affluent kids.) But this is reductive thinking. We all know that there are schools with affluent students and lousy teachers and administrators, as well as schools with poor students and outstanding teachers and administrators. Which is the good school, and which is the bad one?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/2013/proud-to-be-a-private-public-school-parent.html

The test scores, ranking, SES of the students, safety, general educational offerings etc....

I agree with the general educational offerings. But the test scores, ranking, SES of the students, and safety are all a function of the student body, not of the school.

isn't student body basically the school?

No. The school is the school -- teachers, administration, facilities, course offerings, etc. The student body is the students who go to the school.

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but I think you are making a silly (frankly stupid IMHO) distinction between school and student body. When people talk "good" schools or "bad" schools, they are talking about the quality of student body. So, in that sense, those two are the same.

It is all about the student body-a good teacher cannot effectively teach if the students are dealing/doing drugs, violent, unmotivated, disengaged and disruptive....there are less of these type of students at the "good" schools