In other words, people would believe that neighborhoods that exclude poor people have good schools, and neighborhoods that don't exclude poor people have bad schools.

Anonymous wrote:

We moved from a different state. How would people be able to go to all these places to investigate how good the schools are if they are moving from far away? Sure, they could make multiple trips and stay in a hotel while they look around, but that's pretty expensive to do.

So, in your estimation, we would still use test scores, just at the HS level. Therefore, parents do look at standardized test scores to determine how good the schools are. And I bet you that most would want that kind of figure in the ESs as well because it makes it much more quantifiable and easy to look up.

Most people want some of the soft data as well (what I was saying about extra curricular activities and community resources for sports, music, etc.), especially in ES, because they know that test data is not the whole story. They know that what matters in ES is the improvement of their own child from many angles (the "whole child"). Many whose children already do well in school know that the ES will not "make or break" the kid if there is flexibility in the teaching (the teacher has time and resources to plan to let the students learn at their own levels). The HS scores are relevant because they show that the students did receive instruction to get them to those higher levels. And colleges don't care about ES test scores. If the HS is doing well, that's a pretty good indicator for the feeders. ES is a time when the child is developing in so many ways and the test scores don't tell you about the soft skills development at all. For many, those are the more important things being learned in ES.

My parents did not have those figures. I would say that, yes, my HS was probably better from a quantifiable perspective than my ES (because I was in one of the outlying schools). But, that didn't matter by the end. My parents were more than willing to drive me to the library, music lessons, drama club, etc. so they brought me to the amenities. That is, in fact, one way to live in a cheaper area, but take advantage of the more expensive area's resources. You do need transportation though.

People know all kinds of things based on what they see -- that aren't actually true.

Getting back to the question -- do you think that the curriculum is irrelevant?

We moved from a different state. How would people be able to go to all these places to investigate how good the schools are if they are moving from far away? Sure, they could make multiple trips and stay in a hotel while they look around, but that's pretty expensive to do.

So, in your estimation, we would still use test scores, just at the HS level. Therefore, parents do look at standardized test scores to determine how good the schools are. And I bet you that most would want that kind of figure in the ESs as well because it makes it much more quantifiable and easy to look up.

Anonymous wrote:

Well, believe it or not, evaluating SES along with knowing what extra curricular activities (chess club, Odyssey of the Mind, FLEX programs, scouts, etc.) are offered and what neighborhood amenities in terms of sports, dance, tutoring, music teachers, etc. are available, you will come really close in assessing the schools (if not spot on). I would sort of be interested in just a study of how many Music and Arts stores are close to highly ranked schools (that could be interesting). Lots of kids take lessons there. Not to mention looking up how many people have graduated from college in a certain zip code (yep, that information is out there as well). It's truly amazing. These things correlate.

When I was a kid I do recall thinking that my individual school was good---but it was good. The data from that area is showing it to be one of the best in the state. It always has been. People know these things based on what they see (and people who care get involved). Just how it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think that the curriculum is irrelevant? Do you think that it doesn't matter what the curriculum is, because some kids will learn what they need to and other kids won't, regardless of the curriculum?

Will some kids learn what they need to learn "without a curriculum"? Sure. Many humans "learn what they need to". However, some kids won't "learn what they need to" even with a curriculum. And some kids will learn exactly what is in the curriculum. Some kids will meet a given standard and some won't (within a classroom and they have the very same teacher). If the powers that be want to use the standardized tests to get rid of teachers, they will have to explain why some kids pass the standards with a teacher and why others with the very same teacher don't. Just wait for the lawsuit on this one when they try to fire the first teacher based on these test scores. Will they then say, "oh, but that other kid comes from a higher SES and you have to focus on the lower SES so that you are a good teacher"?

In other words, people would believe that neighborhoods that exclude poor people have good schools, and neighborhoods that don't exclude poor people have bad schools.In other words, people would believe that neighborhoods that exclude poor people have good schools, and neighborhoods that don't exclude poor people have bad schools. Somehow I don't find this a particularly good way to assess the quality of the schools.

Also, before the Internet, people believed that schools in general had problems, but their individual schools were good. Now we have a lot more actual data. That is a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:

If we did away with standardized testing and national standards, I'm curious how websites like greatschools would rank ES. What would they base it on? If every district/state had their own standards, you really couldn't use any kind of test scores to rank since it would be comparing apples to oranges.

And if this should happen, what would DCUM parents use to find the so-called great schools?

Easy. Socio-economic status of the neighborhoods feeding into the schools would pretty much tell you a lot. Beyond that, there are ACT and SAT scores and NAEP scores from the middle and high schools that the elementary schools feed into. There are also extracurricular activities that pretty much tell you who is at the school. Heck, you can tell from just going to the Little League Park or the local YMCA or church. People talk and teachers and principals are known. Before the internet you had these things called communities where people actually hung out and talked to each other. This had nothing to do with standardized tests because we didn't have those in spades (maybe one every couple of years and no public data). When I was a kid (1962) my parents moved from one area to another to get into good schools. There were no secrets involved. It was widely known as one of the better districts in the area. We knew which ones were not so good too. The DCUM people would find other ways to define schools (and those ways might be a lot better anyway).

Do you think that the curriculum is irrelevant? Do you think that it doesn't matter what the curriculum is, because some kids will learn what they need to and other kids won't, regardless of the curriculum?

Anonymous wrote:

Easy. Socio-economic status of the neighborhoods feeding into the schools would pretty much tell you a lot. Beyond that, there are ACT and SAT scores and NAEP scores from the middle and high schools that the elementary schools feed into. There are also extracurricular activities that pretty much tell you who is at the school. Heck, you can tell from just going to the Little League Park or the local YMCA or church. People talk and teachers and principals are known. Before the internet you had these things called communities where people actually hung out and talked to each other. This had nothing to do with standardized tests because we didn't have those in spades (maybe one every couple of years and no public data). When I was a kid (1962) my parents moved from one area to another to get into good schools. There were no secrets involved. It was widely known as one of the better districts in the area. We knew which ones were not so good too. The DCUM people would find other ways to define schools (and those ways might be a lot better anyway).

If we did away with standardized testing and national standards, I'm curious how websites like greatschools would rank ES. What would they base it on? If every district/state had their own standards, you really couldn't use any kind of test scores to rank since it would be comparing apples to oranges.

And if this should happen, what would DCUM parents use to find the so-called great schools?

Nobody ever said that the Common Core standards would fix all of the many problems in education.


I have yet to see any problem that Common Core standards will fix.

Anonymous wrote:

Standards change curricula.

And, you think that will mean the kids will meet the standards? You are incredibly naïve.

Anonymous wrote:

Standards change curricula.

And, you think that will mean the kids will meet the standards? You are incredibly naïve.