<p>Per-pupil expenditure does not mean better school in Ohio. The socioeconomic status of the school district does.</p>
<p>You can see % of kids in poverty in a district and also its “report card” ranking here:</p>
<p>[2011-12</a> Ohio School District Report Cards and Ranking | StateImpact Ohio](<a href=“http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/10/17/ohio-school-district-report-card-data-2011-12/#table]2011-12”>http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/10/17/ohio-school-district-report-card-data-2011-12/#table)</p>
<p>If you cross-check poverty rate here: <a href=“https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=19rez3KxtK1tpcWuu3-pesA9z27e8m3pnZ45IaJo[/url]”>https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=19rez3KxtK1tpcWuu3-pesA9z27e8m3pnZ45IaJo</a></p>
<p>With the rankings at the first link, you see a clear trend - poorer districts don’t do as well as wealthier districts.</p>
<p>I don’t think Ohio is particularly unique in this regard, and it from what I read, Texas has a similar funding system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is quite honestly the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen on this website. You’re not seriously comparing a place like East Cleveland, and saying that it’s more affluent than Indian Hill, are you?</p>
<p>Would just like to add, that, while two of my kids went to “top colleges,” the third is now at community college (after a year at an artsy LAC) and is very happy. So the differences between kids continue. The third child is extremely independent and I think original: she does a performing art, works, and does CC, and lives at home. She has a great life. CC is wonderful for her, and she produces great ideas and is helpful to others. Whatever works. </p>
<p>I do think that some kids may very well need the opportunities of a quality schools, for stimulation, adult connections and for peers. But if those things are available in other ways, learning is possible outside of school that is sufficient to make up for the school’s inadequacies, and, again, without the burnout involved in meeting external academic pressures like homework, grade competition etc. </p>
<p>Maybe these things jump generations. I went to a high pressure school, did really well, got into the schools “they” wanted me to, then said see you later and headed for the mountains to do “poverty work.” I never did finish. All that high school work was assigned for the wrong reasons. So my experience made me vow to do things differently with my kids.</p>
<p>If they have the money, my kids will probably choose a high stress private for their own!</p>
<p>shravas - No - OHmom was saying that the more rigorous schools are the ones with more resources. I was pointing out that East Cleveland Schools actually devote more resources to students than Indian Hill and I am sure Indian Hill (3rd best in the State) is more rigorous than East Cleveland. Additionally, if you sort the list I attached - Cleveland Schools spend the 16th most (per pupil) of any district in the entire State of Ohio (out of about 700.)</p>
<p>East Cleveland serves a very different population than Indian Hill, it makes no sense to compare them based only on spending per student. I didn’t attend East Cleveland schools, so I can’t say for sure, but I bet a lot of the money is being spent on things that are not needed in affluent districts like Indian Hill.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In NYC’s case from the stats I last checked, the city’s DOE actually spent the least per-capita on students who attended the academically rigorous public magnets compared with students at other high schools…and the majority were eligible for free/reduced priced school meals. </p>
<p>Even college friends* who assumed they were bastions of SES privilege ended up having to concede their arguments were off-base when I showed them those stats and mentioned the SES composition of most of my HS classmates and what I knew about the other NYC public magnets. </p>
<p>Heck, back then…we had some siblings of HS classmates from well-off families who ended up going to private schools because they didn’t score high enough on the exam to get into our HS or our public magnet rivals. Thus, being well-off is no guarantee one will make it in to the NYC public magnet.</p>
<ul>
<li>Ironically, most of those classmates attended high priced academically rigorous private/boarding schools or public schools in wealthy suburban districts.</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. When I said “rich” kids I was exaggerating slightly, but I was clearly referring to the level of wealth/income in the community, not per pupil expenditure. </p>
<p>Wealthy districts do not have to spend as much money per pupil to get better results for a variety of reasons which I thought would be clear to anyone but perhaps are not.</p>
<p>cobrat, NYC is COMPLETELY different from both Ohio and Texas. Schools are not funded by property taxes there.</p>
<p>I think it is better to get A+ in an underperforming school (plus, you have extra time for EC) than B in a magnet school. </p>
<p>Colleges look at GPA + they like underperforming minority schools. </p>
<p>I am planning to transfer my daughter to such school … unfortunately.</p>
<p>cali - I think you are 100% correct. We are now in a mad spiral downward where worse is actually considered better.</p>
<p>When DD was a senior, the William and Mary director of admissions stood in front of her class and told them that a B at their private school was not better than an A at a public school.</p>
<p>I’d be careful about making these types of assumptions. While most top universities may only look at the top ten percent of the class seriously, they certainly seem to take “more” from the magnet programs I know. But attempting to manipulate admission odds via school rigor can be dicey at best, because you’ve got to consider peer factor and engagement. Where will they love to learn and not be bored outta their skulls? It’s more important than we think when we’re talking about gifted kids.</p>
<p>I’ve seen what can happen to really bright kids who leave magnet schools and attend an under-performing school, and if its a mismatch, just because they’re capable of getting a straight 4.0 doesn’t mean they will.</p>
<p>I listened to a young man - a lifelong friend of my son’s – just this weekend describe how leaving one such school was terrible for him, how the public underperforming school was such a joke curricularly he barely bothered to turn up, etc., and how now when all his other friends were graduating college, he wished he’d never “screwed himself” in this way and is trying to figure out how to belatedly get his butt to college and do something with his skills/passion instead of working retail.</p>
<p>The other two friends sitting at the table with us had gone to Northwestern (but dropped out to work) and University of Michigan (graduated, but in music technology, which will make employment an adventure – and of course, that one’s mine :). The Northwestern dropout makes decent money now (but hates his job) and the other is newly searching (but loves his field).</p>
<p>What was interesting to me was that the conversation wasn’t just about getting jobs, but rather the life of the mind and delving into things you love, feeling stimulated by new ideas. And they talked openly about how torturous it could be in the education system to plod through material slowly when each is the type to prefer total immersion toward mastery.</p>
<p>All three are bright guys and may just end up doing equally well or differently than one might guess based on their varying degrees of post-secondary education. Life is full of viscisitudes. So the pedigree itself might be overrated, but I think the culture isn’t.</p>
<p>Then others will go their own way. My son has another friend who dropped out of the magnet school, then after a single term, dropped out of the underperforming public, which he described as ridiculous, and decided instead to self-educate (completely independent of parental input.) He went to community college and aced it, transferred to UMich, and graduated with my son (and with considerably less debt.) Now he’s going to grad school.</p>
<p>So, every kid has their path :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely. I made some financial sacrifices to keep my kids in a school district, public, with very high housing costs. It’s COOL to be smart here. Kids are proud of good grades. We have 2 good LACs and 2 state unis nearby and our district has arrangements with them all for classes taught both in our HS and on their campuses - free or very cheap. Almost everyone goes to college, it is the expectation.</p>
<p>I don’t think in a less academic environment they’d do as well. Would they be ranked higher? Maybe, but I’m not sure they’d work as hard.</p>
<p>A high tide lifts all boats, right?</p>
<p>Coming from a weak high school, if I ever have kids, I would most definitely send them to a more competitive high school. </p>
<p>The rigor that some of my friends have is worth it, even if it is at the cost of an Ivy due to competitiveness. By going to a weaker high school, you are sacrificing your high school formative years for a better college - but you don’t even know what college or high school might entail! Perhaps you’ll discover something about yourself that you might not have at a worse school due to a lack of resources.</p>
<p>One’s cohort really defines them. A better school will most likely have better students. The surroundings you encounter at a better school will influence you through college. The skills you learn through a harsher environment will pay off in the long run - more than simply getting into a good college. If you can’t do well at a top university, then what was the point of wasting four years of high school?</p>
<p>In the end though, high school really doesn’t matter. It’s about what you do with the hand you’re dealt. Do your best, and talent will rise to the top. You’ll do fine in life.</p>