Thank you.

This is not NSA high level propriety data as claimed.

Now, one can begin to understand all the twisting and turning claims by biased Norwood boosters. Of note, I suspect the attrition and replacement numbers would make the story even more telling (numerators and denominators).

I think consumers of education (particularly "non-profit" and independent) ought to have this type of information. It may play a role in decision making. We use information like this every day before going under the knife, buying a car or picking a "non-profit" and independent college to attend.

New poster. I don't understand why this bickering has gone on for five pages. Can't someone just take the 10 minutes needed to research the issue?

I just used the WayBackMachine to check Norwood's total enrollment for a few recent years. Here are the results:

522 enrolled in 2005
530 enrolled in 2008
528 enrolled in 2009
492 enrolled in 2011
454 enrolled in 2013

Seems to be dropping.

Others who are actually interested can fill in the gaps.
https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.norwoodschool.org

Got it, you want a soapbox, not to engage in a discussion. For my part, I will let this thread die -- it's gone down the rabbit hole by this time. (And by the way, waiting 5-6 minutes between posts does not fool anyone into thinking there are multiple posters who agree with you -- your particular style is quite unmistakeable!)

Bye.

Huh, what does this distraction have to do with the merits of access to facts (e.g., attrition or retention rates) by consumers of education?

Anonymous wrote:The thread has turned into people giving accurate information about Norwood vs. Norwood parents desperate to defend their kid's school.

huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Interesting comparison. A few follow-up points: Colleges have been required under federal law since about the mid-1990s to publish their graduation rates. Of course, the federal government has the power to do this because of the leverage of federal financial aid programs. Because there is no such federal financial aid for students to attend private elementary/secondary schools, obviously the federal government at least has no jurisdiction. (Perhaps local/state governments with voucher programs could try to link participation to publication of such data, but that would tend to drive down participation in voucher programs by well-founded schools). Again, it really comes down to "independent schools." Moreover, because independent schools draw from a local community, it can be assumed that potential applicants should be able to get a good sense of whether there is an issue with attrition levels by talking to others in their community (current or past parents). Lastly, is attrition in general at non-startup independent schools an issue of any significance? Unlike with charter schools, for example, which have a relatively high failure rate, we don't see a pattern of schools closing around here and people losing tuition payments in the middle of the year.

The advice is trite and boring, but it works: before you send your child to a school, talk to current and former families. If you don't want to get names from the school because you think they will be "company people," ask your circle of acquaintances at work or in your neighborhood and it shouldn't be too hard to get referrals. If there's something serious, sure, ask the school (up to you if you do it before your child is admitted -- I generally assume that schools don't blacklist the child with the aggressive parent on the school tour but you might choose discretion over valor). If you have many negative preconceptions about a school in particular, maybe just give it a pass -- there are lots of other ones to choose from.

What about the power of the Federal government to require disclosure or revoke "non profit" status and pay up (taxes)?

If attrition rates are insignificant why hide them (if there is nothing to hide)?

Relying completely on the words of current and former families is not "independent" .... concepts of "bias" and "self-interest" and "self-selection" come to play here.

Agree, your advice and remedy is trite and boring and superficial.

Got it, you want a soapbox, not to engage in a discussion. For my part, I will let this thread die -- it's gone down the rabbit hole by this time. (And by the way, waiting 5-6 minutes between posts does not fool anyone into thinking there are multiple posters who agree with you -- your particular style is quite unmistakeable!)

Bye.

... If you have many negative preconceptions about a school in particular, maybe just give it a pass -- there are lots of other ones to choose from.

Why pass and make and ill-fated decision based on preconceptions? There are some who prefer to make decisions on an evidence base of facts rather than negative (or positive) preconceptions. Many are burned by the latter strategy.

As an education consumer I find this type of information on retention/attrition rates more informative than "top Ivy of Big 3". Why does Norwood and others hid this information from education consumers like many posters here who also ardently defend this practice?

Quite simple. The respondents are more than likely biased with conflicts of interest. In other words, they have skin in Norwood (student, parent, school official).

Independent schools do not all draw from the local community. Some independent schools draw from all 50 states and the international community. I guess folk here are too parochial and have never heard of Exeter and Andover (or Episcopal School)!

As an education consumer I find this type of information on retention/attrition rates more informative than "top Ivy of Big 3". Why does Norwood and others hide this information from education consumers like many posters here who also ardently and passionately defend this practice?

+1

Interesting comparison. A few follow-up points: Colleges have been required under federal law since about the mid-1990s to publish their graduation rates. Of course, the federal government has the power to do this because of the leverage of federal financial aid programs. Because there is no such federal financial aid for students to attend private elementary/secondary schools, obviously the federal government at least has no jurisdiction. (Perhaps local/state governments with voucher programs could try to link participation to publication of such data, but that would tend to drive down participation in voucher programs by well-founded schools). Again, it really comes down to "independent schools." Moreover, because independent schools draw from a local community, it can be assumed that potential applicants should be able to get a good sense of whether there is an issue with attrition levels by talking to others in their community (current or past parents). Lastly, is attrition in general at non-startup independent schools an issue of any significance? Unlike with charter schools, for example, which have a relatively high failure rate, we don't see a pattern of schools closing around here and people losing tuition payments in the middle of the year.

The advice is trite and boring, but it works: before you send your child to a school, talk to current and former families. If you don't want to get names from the school because you think they will be "company people," ask your circle of acquaintances at work or in your neighborhood and it shouldn't be too hard to get referrals. If there's something serious, sure, ask the school (up to you if you do it before your child is admitted -- I generally assume that schools don't blacklist the child with the aggressive parent on the school tour but you might choose discretion over valor). If you have many negative preconceptions about a school in particular, maybe just give it a pass -- there are lots of other ones to choose from.

What about the power of the Federal government to require disclosure or revoke "non profit" status and pay up (taxes)?

If attrition rates are insignificant why hide them (if there is nothing to hide)?

Relying completely on the words of current and former families is not "independent" .... concepts of "bias" and "self-interest" and "self-selection" come to play here.

Agree, your advice and remedy is trite and boring and superficial.

Anonymous wrote:http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/freshmen-least-most-likely-return

As an education consumer I find this type of information on retention/attrition rates more informative than "top Ivy of Big 3". Why does Norwood and others hid this information from education consumers like many posters here who also ardently defend this practice?

Interesting comparison. A few follow-up points: Colleges have been required under federal law since about the mid-1990s to publish their graduation rates. Of course, the federal government has the power to do this because of the leverage of federal financial aid programs. Because there is no such federal financial aid for students to attend private elementary/secondary schools, obviously the federal government at least has no jurisdiction. (Perhaps local/state governments with voucher programs could try to link participation to publication of such data, but that would tend to drive down participation in voucher programs by well-founded schools). Again, it really comes down to "independent schools." Moreover, because independent schools draw from a local community, it can be assumed that potential applicants should be able to get a good sense of whether there is an issue with attrition levels by talking to others in their community (current or past parents). Lastly, is attrition in general at non-startup independent schools an issue of any significance? Unlike with charter schools, for example, which have a relatively high failure rate, we don't see a pattern of schools closing around here and people losing tuition payments in the middle of the year.

The advice is trite and boring, but it works: before you send your child to a school, talk to current and former families. If you don't want to get names from the school because you think they will be "company people," ask your circle of acquaintances at work or in your neighborhood and it shouldn't be too hard to get referrals. If there's something serious, sure, ask the school (up to you if you do it before your child is admitted -- I generally assume that schools don't blacklist the child with the aggressive parent on the school tour but you might choose discretion over valor). If you have many negative preconceptions about a school in particular, maybe just give it a pass -- there are lots of other ones to choose from.

You had a busy 18 minutes this morning, huh? Hee.

+1

Well adjusted consumers of education services agree.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/freshmen-least-most-likely-return

As an education consumer I find this type of information on retention/attrition rates more informative than "top Ivy of Big 3". Why does Norwood and others hid this information from education consumers like many posters here who also ardently defend this practice?

If your school or surgeon feel the need to hide this information (mortality or attrition rates) -- buyer beware.

...Huck Finn