School District Advice

[CrimsonStache]

Need some advice.

What does MMM say about school districts? I feel like most people that live out in the suburbs and endure the long commute do so in order to send their children to competitive and highly rated public schools. I just read that article about the $2,200 dollar apartment in downtown Toronto and how that was a great deal compared to the suckas commuting an 1.5 hours, but you would probably pay through the nose to send your kids to a nice private school OR have to send your kid to a not so highly rated inner city public school. What is the MMM wisdom on this?

Btw - I don't have kids so no dog in the fight.

[Cranky]

I'd say take a look at the schools and see what your objections to them would be, in reality. "Bad" schools usually have low test scores because they have lots of poor kids. That doesn't mean they are unsafe or that they don't offer great educational opportunities.

I sent my kids to "bad" public schools, in the school district we could afford, and they did well, and met a much more varied set of friends than they would have in a more suburban district.

And honestly, they got to be the "rich" kids, because everything is relative. They were pretty surprised when they went off to college and found out that we actually weren't rich.

[Bucksandreds]

With 100% certainty the 'better' schools on average produce more highly successful college students/adults.  Is it because the parents of the better schools are pushing their children more? Could this be replicated by individual parents on their individual kids at 'poor' schools? MMM home schools.  Without being 100% certain of the answers to my questions I built in a very high property tax school district because all schools get 10/10.  It's like an insurance policy for me in case I'm a poor parent. My kids would have a better chance.

[Pooperman]

I went to good schools until high school. High school was ok. Really good schools can make a huge difference when it comes down to the extras. With a poor school, you'll end up getting the same (roughly) education as in a rich school. The difference is that, while the poor school might have some sports teams, the rich school will have plenty of STEM extracurriculars as well, like a robotics club or whatever. That's the primary difference. The quality of the education is slightly better at a rich school vs a poor one because parents push their kids and that gives a better classroom experience.

[Warlord1986]

School ratings are nonsense. The ability to take a standardized test has no impact on the rest of your life. It does not measure anything meaningful, and you will be better off going to the schools in your district and seeing how they function rather than relying on test scores and rankings.

Case in point: my middle school was rated slightly above average. There were rats. It was unsanitary and violent. My 8th grade English teacher didn't bother to teach us anything because that was her last year.

[Lucky Girl]

Warlord1986, I don't think the OP's question was about ranking so much as about the actual quality of schools.  I agree, you can find great quality schools anywhere, urban or suburban.  As Pooperman mentioned, what can be very different is the classroom environment.  I attended many different public schools (moved around a lot as a kid) and worked at a private (Catholic) school.  In schools where the vast majority of kids had engaged parents and a desire to succeed, it is easier to get the most out of your education.  I cannot tell you how demoralizing it is to be in a classroom of kids who don't care, and who perceive you as the know-it-all just because you pay attention and do the homework. 

[mtn]

My mom came from a poor school. She struggled to pass math in college because of it. On the other hand, she's a nurse with a college degree, her 2 brother-in-laws that went through the same system are Veterninarians, and 2 of her sisters have Masters degrees (and one of those sisters is now principal of the school).

My dad went to a great school. He has an MBA and is making bank.

At the end of the day, it comes down to the parents and the individual kid. But I'll be staying in good schools for a few reasons: 
First, my aunt who is the principal at said poor school has given me some insight--she has to deal with kids dropping out due to meth problems, teen pregnancy, or to go to work. It distracts the teachers from teaching as they have to play counselor, baby sitter, teacher, police liaison, parent liaison, OB/GYN liaison, etc.. That wasn't an issue where I went to school.
Second, home values. Look at the market rise and crash and recovery. The better school districts recover faster and farther. They don't [always] drop as much. And the homes sell faster. If we ultimately can't buy where we want, we're not going to sweat it from the school standpoint--we have a lot of parochial schools that are just as good as the public schools--but it is a harder sale when we want to get out.

[MakeSmarterDecisions]

The specific school makes a big difference too. I observed student teachers in all types of settings this year (urban, suburban, rural) - and I was in some great city schools and others that I would never put my child in. My kids have had a great education in a suburban school but missed out on a lot of the diversity.  The one in college is really enjoying that now.

[Spitfire]

Growing up, my neighborhood was nice but my school district was terrible (Elementary is rated a 1, Middle and High schools rated a 2). There were fights and bullying, but that was mostly dumb kids interacting with other dumb kids. I was with the nerds and didn't notice that much. Sometimes at lunch or in the halls I would see that stuff but I minded my own business. I went on to get a Master's degree and CPA license. Education is usually a function of effort by the student (and parents in my case, thanks Mom). My teachers were pretty good and didn't limit my growth. As long as the area and school are safe, that is more important than pure test score grading IMO.

That being said, I did buy in a nice area with a good school district. Those two seem to go hand in hand down here, though that may not be the case everywhere. 

[Chris22]

Need some advice.

What does MMM say about school districts? I feel like most people that live out in the suburbs and endure the long commute do so in order to send their children to competitive and highly rated public schools. I just read that article about the $2,200 dollar apartment in downtown Toronto and how that was a great deal compared to the suckas commuting an 1.5 hours, but you would probably pay through the nose to send your kids to a nice private school OR have to send your kid to a not so highly rated inner city public school. What is the MMM wisdom on this?

Btw - I don't have kids so no dog in the fight.

Well, I think there are a couple of assumptions you need to consider here.

1, not everyone works in a downtown area.  I live in one suburb, work in another, and my wife works in a third.  Very easy to find good work at large companies that aren't downtown in Chicagoland.  I have to think other places are the same way.

2.  Many of the best suburbs in this area are considered "the best" because of their proximity to some of the main commuter train lines into the city, so if you do work in the city and have a "long commute" it may very well be via train, which can suck in its own way, but isn't a long car commute. 

And finally, I see "good schools" equated with "high property taxes" a lot here, and that isn't necessarily true either.  My suburb and county have a decent industrial base, and enough massive mcmansions, that my little house has lower property taxes than it would in some of the surrounding towns or counties with lesser schools.  True, we have a smaller, older house, but that shouldn't matter to anyone here, right? 

Personally, as a parent I see my number 1 responsibility is to make sure my kid has a good education, and that means, among other things, sending her to the best school system I reasonably can, balanced against living in a location that allows me a commute time short enough that I can see her as much as possible.  The whole "I went to a crappy school rated 1 and turned out fine as an astrophysicist who writes poetry in my spare time" thing is a red herring in my mind; I'm going to try and give my kid every meaningful advantage I can.  And it doesn't even cost me more, it just means the sacrifice I make is in having a less-nice house. 

[nancyjnelson]

I went to three different high schools due to my father being transferred within his company.  My favorite high school was rated a 1 (out of 10).  The school I detested (so much so that I took an extra class to graduate a year early) was rated 10 out of 10.

My daughter just graduated from a high school so mediocre (rated 4 out of 10) that my next door neighbors moved to a nearby town to avoid having their children attend. Despite this, my daughter will start her first year of college this September only 4 credits shy of being a sophomore due to the AP courses she took.

I agree with those who point to parental involvement and the student's own initiative/discipline as being key.

[mtn]

That being said, I did buy in a nice area with a good school district. Those two seem to go hand in hand down here, though that may not be the case everywhere.

Another excellent point. If we want a nice area with a good library, nice restaurant options, good grocery stores, and a nice downtown, it puts you defacto into the good school districts. Not a rule, but something that we've seen to be true.

Nancy, interesting point with the AP classes. A lot of schools that aren't rated high do not have them. The amount of AP classes (and the class options themselves) would definitely sway my opinion.

[mm1970]

I'd say take a look at the schools and see what your objections to them would be, in reality. "Bad" schools usually have low test scores because they have lots of poor kids. That doesn't mean they are unsafe or that they don't offer great educational opportunities.

I sent my kids to "bad" public schools, in the school district we could afford, and they did well, and met a much more varied set of friends than they would have in a more suburban district.

And honestly, they got to be the "rich" kids, because everything is relative. They were pretty surprised when they went off to college and found out that we actually weren't rich.

Pretty much echoes our current experience. 

The school we are in is mostly poor kids who are English learners.
We transferred to a different one (we are between the two, location wise), which is 75% poor kids and 50% English learners.  Still a poor school, slightly less poor.
The next one over is the rich school, with a great test scores, rich kids, they raise 10x the amount of money we do in a year (and 100x our home school, probably).

The advantage to the rich school is smarter kids, and a lot less work fundraising.  Disadvantage is all the rich kids and their trips to Europe, or to go skiing, or whatever.
The advantage of our current school is a more realistic view of what life is really like.  Disadvantage...fundraising work AND a number of the smart kids transfer out because their parents don't want them going to school with poor kids who are English learners.

Yeah, so maybe my son would be better off going to the better school and getting challenged earlier. Eh, I don't know.  He was telling me after camp yesterday that he wants to go to Cal Tech (he's 10).  I said "you mean Cal Poly!" (cheaper).  Either way I said "good luck buddy.  You are smart and you work hard, but you're a middle class white boy."

[Chris22]

The school we are in is mostly poor kids who are English learners.
We transferred to a different one (we are between the two, location wise), which is 75% poor kids and 50% English learners.  Still a poor school, slightly less poor.
The next one over is the rich school, with a great test scores, rich kids, they raise 10x the amount of money we do in a year (and 100x our home school, probably)....AND a number of the smart kids transfer out because their parents don't want them going to school with poor kids who are English learners.

The problem is not that people hate poor kids who are English learners, the problem is (rightly) that kids who don't know English suck up a huge amount of finite resources (classroom time, teacher attention, etc) that could go towards moving other kids forward.  The more time you spend teaching 9th graders how to read at a 3rd grade level, the less time you're spending teaching them stuff they need to learn in 9th grade.  True, maybe your super gifted kid isn't in their same class, but it still takes resources overall, and there will still probably be some general-type classes where they will be in class with everyone, not just other gifted kids.

[Lski'stash]

Whether or not a school district is 'bad' or 'good'is all a relative matter. Most schools don't teach too differently from one another in a given area, but they might have vastly different populations of kids. I would personally visit the school (bad or good school district) to see what you think. Look for kids playing in the playground, getting help here and there from their teachers and the others in the room. Are the kids confined to a desk all day (not really what you want to see- some is good, but not all day), or do they have different areas they congregate in throughout the day and have stations set up for learning? How does the school handle behavior? Look for a school-wide behavior plan, such as capturing kids hearts, love and logic, or Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS). All of the teachers should be familiar with the plan and are comfortable carrying it out successfully. If the behavior plan is simply multiple suspensions until the kid fails or transfers...beware...

[charis]

Personally, as a parent I see my number 1 responsibility is to make sure my kid has a good education, and that means, among other things, sending her to the best school system I reasonably can, balanced against living in a location that allows me a commute time short enough that I can see her as much as possible.  The whole "I went to a crappy school rated 1 and turned out fine as an astrophysicist who writes poetry in my spare time" thing is a red herring in my mind; I'm going to try and give my kid every meaningful advantage I can.  And it doesn't even cost me more, it just means the sacrifice I make is in having a less-nice house.

I see ratings and the "bad" school label as a much bigger red herring than a person's personal experience that they went to a lower rated school and did well in college and career, which isn't uncommon.   

Some people believe, as I do, that that giving a child every meaningful advantage doesn't equate to the "best school system."  In my book, a good education isn't just the best of everything.  For instance, I value urban community and economic and racial diversity (more common to "bad" school districts) and see it as important to my child's success and growth as a citizen.   To be clear, however, I would never undermine my own child's education by sending her to a school that was a poor fit or didn't support her academically. 

[Giro]

We live in a cheap area and commute a relatively short distance to work and send our kid to a private school.  Currently she goes to a cheap private K-8 Catholic school but will be going to the high school Catholic school as well (probably).   The difference I see is student to teacher ratio and an enormous difference in scholarship funding.  The small-ish Catholic high school gives away MILLIONS in scholarships to a relatively small class of graduating seniors.  Last year, the school had 92% of it's graduating Seniors receive scholarships.  They have a lot of private donations and fund raising in addition to all of the other scholarships that everyone is fighting for.  They also have counselors that have lists of scholarships that they make sure someone applies for.

 

[jeninco]

We initially sent our kid to our neighborhood school, which at the time was something like 50/50 middle-class anglo kids/lower income ELL Spanish-speaking kids. 50/50 in kindergarten, that is, moving to something like 15%/85% or 10%/90% by 4th/5th grades, as people pulled their kids. We volunteered tons (beginning before our first kid even started) and were very involved, both in the classroom, and at a fundraising/PTO/organizational level.

The thing is, while it looks fine in kindergarten to have a big, diverse classroom, what happens in 1st and 2nd grades, when some of the kids know how to add number to 10 and some don't, and continue not to? What happens when you begin science and some kids have been to the science museum (and know a bit about planets and solar systems and moons) and some haven't? This became more and more of a problem, culminating with a teacher telling me (in a public meeting)

"We don't have a responsibility to provide a challenging education to your kids when there are so many children here with greater needs."

Um, OK. We requested an administrative transfer to a "better" school that summer. My then 3rd grader, who was gifted-level smart, still spent most of third grade working hard (with help from his excellent teacher, thank dog) bringing his writing up to (and then beyond) grade level.

I think my point is that when you visit schools, don't just watch playgrounds and gym classes and lower school grades. Go into a 4th or 5th grade class and watch for a while. Mentally pick out a kid that reminds you of who your child may grow into and watch how that kid functions in the classroom. How does s/he interact with the teacher? What happens when s/he either finishes the task and gets bored, or doesn't finish it and struggles? And, really, watch more than one classroom -- because the school may attempt to point you to the one outstanding teacher who can handle a very diverse classroom, but it's a difficult, rare skill.

[Cranky]

Are the schools in downtown Toronto really bad? I'm having a hard time picturing that....

[MrsDinero]

Following because Mr. D and I have been talking about this.  We still have several years before school age.

[rae]

Are the schools in downtown Toronto really bad? I'm having a hard time picturing that....

Mostly no. Toronto was a bad example. We don't have the same school system as in the US. Most kids go to public school, and although not all schools are created equal, there are only a few that I would worry about sending my kids to. Private schools are usually for the 1%ers and for religious education.

[ketchup]

I graduated from a "10" high school in yuppie suburbia Chicagoland, and my GF graduated from a "3" high school in a 35%-below-poverty-line "ghetto" area of inner-city Phoenix.

There were definitely differences in our experiences, but not as much as I would have thought.  My best teachers seemed like they were better than her best teachers, but the median teacher at mine wasn't much better than the median teacher at hers from what I gather.  As others have said, the students themselves (and the parents) seem to play a much larger role in how well a student does than the school.

My school definitely had more resources for athletics and other bullshittery, with some of that actually spilling over into academics.  And extra money to hire more useless overpaid administration (I don't know the current situation, but when I was there, the superintendent made more money than the governor).  But the orchestra room was still a chemistry room.  And the counselors seemed too busy to do any counseling.

[mtn]

I graduated from a "10" high school in yuppie suburbia Chicagoland, and my GF graduated from a "3" high school in a 35%-below-poverty-line "ghetto" area of inner-city Phoenix.

There were definitely differences in our experiences, but not as much as I would have thought.  My best teachers seemed like they were better than her best teachers, but the median teacher at mine wasn't much better than the median teacher at hers from what I gather.  As others have said, the students themselves (and the parents) seem to play a much larger role in how well a student does than the school.

My school definitely had more resources for athletics and other bullshittery, with some of that actually spilling over into academics.  And extra money to hire more useless overpaid administration (I don't know the current situation, but when I was there, the superintendent made more money than the governor).  But the orchestra room was still a chemistry room.  And the counselors seemed too busy to do any counseling.

New Trier? GBS/GBN?

[aceyou]

Disclaimer: I'm a high school public school math teacher

Things that don't matter to me:
- test score data.  Test scores are 95% a reflection of the student population
- how a school is rated...because the rating is mostly a reflection of test score data, which is a reflection of student population. 

Things that matter (well, to me):
- Parental involvement.  In this sense, it makes no difference where you attend...just be involved with your child's education!
- programs you/your child is interested in.  I want my child in robotics/science olympiad kind of stuff.  So, I'd want a school that offered that.  But that's just me, you get to pick the things you care about, and you can find the places that have that. 
- diversity.  This is just a personal preference, but I want my kids in a school where not everyone is the same color, religion, economic makeup.  The world is a diverse place, and I want my children to navigate it.  I hate that there's poverty in this world, but if there is poverty, I want my children to recognize it and understand it. 

[marion10]

Raised two children and sent them to public schools in Chicago suburbs. There are many schools in the city proper that are unsafe. Especially as kids get older the prospect of physical violence is something I was not going to expose my children to.
There are high schools that offer no foreign language or no math beyond algebra and no laboratory science- that is a bad school.
There are good public schools or charter schools (and some charter schools are dismal)- but it is a lot of effort to get your child into them- sometimes a lottery system and I was not willing to put in the effort.

[ketchup]

I graduated from a "10" high school in yuppie suburbia Chicagoland, and my GF graduated from a "3" high school in a 35%-below-poverty-line "ghetto" area of inner-city Phoenix.

There were definitely differences in our experiences, but not as much as I would have thought.  My best teachers seemed like they were better than her best teachers, but the median teacher at mine wasn't much better than the median teacher at hers from what I gather.  As others have said, the students themselves (and the parents) seem to play a much larger role in how well a student does than the school.

My school definitely had more resources for athletics and other bullshittery, with some of that actually spilling over into academics.  And extra money to hire more useless overpaid administration (I don't know the current situation, but when I was there, the superintendent made more money than the governor).  But the orchestra room was still a chemistry room.  And the counselors seemed too busy to do any counseling.

New Trier? GBS/GBN?

Farther west.

[big_slacker]

Based on my background my goal is to get my kids into the schools that will keep them engaged in the process and love learning the most. I feel based on experience that the higher ranked schools have better environments, both in terms of teaching and peers. This totally isn't me freaking out about missing the wrong kindergarten so little slacker misses his chance to get into harvard. I'm not playing that game. I'm playing the one where my kids look forward to going to school even if the curriculum is challenging, instead of worrying about getting jumped like I was. :D

In my case where I'm at is biking distance to where I work, in a district with the best schools in the area and is a really nice and safe environment. I bitch about the high cost of living but for where I'm at in life I feel it's the best place for my family, particularly the kids. I'll pay the premium.

[Lagom]

This is definitely a complicated question. Personally I wouldn't choose to live in a much pricier area/increase my commute unless the school system was substantially better, and potentially not even then depending on the details. Also agree that responsible parental involvement (i.e. no helicopter or tiger parenting) and a *measured* dose of extracurriculars will be more than sufficient to ensure success in whichever way you care to  define it.

That said, we are in a unique position in that my wife is a teacher in one of the more prestigious school districts in my area and we could send our kids there if we wanted to. Our local school district is considered "average." My heart and my life philosophy is urging me to go with the local district, knowing that we can provide more than enough academic enrichment to fill any small gaps. Plus the increased economic diversity is something I personally would prefer my children be exposed to. Nevertheless, I heavily network for my job, and the pattern has become very clear to me that people who grow up in those fancier districts start with a leg up not just because of a (real or perceived) superiority in their curriculum and school resources, but also because they have a much stronger network to tap into from their first day as an adult. On the other hand, I really don't want my children to internalize the life and money philosophy (i.e. wasteful, hedonistic consumerism) that so many high-earners seem to have.

We'll probably go with my wife's school district anyway since my stepson's father will insist on it for him, and I see no reason to break up the kids in that fashion, but if that weren't in the picture I'm not sure which way I would lean. I think maybe towards the "worse" district, honestly.

[CrimsonStache]

Thank you for all the great and thoughtful suggestions. Lot's of points of view here.

I just brought up Toronto as an example bc of MMM's article about living in the city, but it seems this is a bigger problem in the USA.

If I can afford it comfortably, I'll probably go with the "better" suburban school district that I grew up in. There is literally no diversity (economic or racial), but it's safe, challenging for those that want a challenge, and has any kind of outside activity you could imagine. Maybe, we could avoid giving our future kids a very insular view of the world by traveling, volunteering, or something similar.

[mozar]

My last two years of high school I transferred from private school to public school. The difference was huge! I never really was able to adjust to the culture change. In private school my teachers treated me with respect no matter what. In public school I had teachers give me worse grades than I deserved to "put me in my place" and I was constantly hassled my security guards. As a person of color, I didn't have to deal with institutional racism until I went to public school. And this was the "best" public high school in my county.

For my (unborn) children I would have them go to the local public suburban elementary school, which is the highest rated in the county, but hopefully they will be bright enough to get into the magnet program which is part time, and I could home school them the rest of the time.

I don't really see the difference between one public school and another, but the difference between public and private seems pretty big.

[big_slacker]

My last two years of high school I transferred from private school to public school. The difference was huge! I never really was able to adjust to the culture change. In private school my teachers treated me with respect no matter what. In public school I had teachers give me worse grades than I deserved to "put me in my place" and I was constantly hassled my security guards. As a person of color, I didn't have to deal with institutional racism until I went to public school. And this was the "best" public high school in my county.

For my (unborn) children I would have them go to the local public suburban elementary school, which is the highest rated in the county, but hopefully they will be bright enough to get into the magnet program which is part time, and I could home school them the rest of the time.

I don't really see the difference between one public school and another, but the difference between public and private seems pretty big.

What part of the country out of curiosity? I hate that bullshit, can't believe we're still dealing with it, but here we are.

[Pigeon]

Where I am, we are in an excellent suburban district with relatively low taxes and much diversity. The worst districts have some of the highest property taxes. As a two working parent family we would avoid schools that do not provide transportation, including a late bus for extracurriculars, have weird schedules and have no after school program.

I have a lot of teachers in the family. I would run like hell from any district with a gang problem. While drugs are everywhere, some places are worse. Ous district has a great music program that has been amazing for our kids.

I also agree about property values being much better in good districts.

[mm1970]

The school we are in is mostly poor kids who are English learners.
We transferred to a different one (we are between the two, location wise), which is 75% poor kids and 50% English learners.  Still a poor school, slightly less poor.
The next one over is the rich school, with a great test scores, rich kids, they raise 10x the amount of money we do in a year (and 100x our home school, probably)....AND a number of the smart kids transfer out because their parents don't want them going to school with poor kids who are English learners.

The problem is not that people hate poor kids who are English learners, the problem is (rightly) that kids who don't know English suck up a huge amount of finite resources (classroom time, teacher attention, etc) that could go towards moving other kids forward.  The more time you spend teaching 9th graders how to read at a 3rd grade level, the less time you're spending teaching them stuff they need to learn in 9th grade.  True, maybe your super gifted kid isn't in their same class, but it still takes resources overall, and there will still probably be some general-type classes where they will be in class with everyone, not just other gifted kids.

I guess it really depends on the school and the grade.  My son's grade has a good number of gifted students - I'd say 6 out of 60, plus a good number of other really bright kids, maybe another 14.

The school distributes them among the classes.  So in fourth grade, 2 classrooms, they split up all the kids - so half the smart kids in each class.  Yes, the English learners do suck up more time, but in general the school gets around it by clustering and doing "pull outs" for math and English every week. 

I've known a few families who transfer out.  Their reasons vary, from "less fundraising", to more opportunities (some of the kids I've known are truly gifted, and can really benefit from the magnet program, whereas my son so far has done well wherever.)  But many of them get caught up in the "upper middle class white" thing really.  By their own admission.  "it's the "best" school, so we had to go".  A few have admitted that they miss our old school.  (And I'm not a fan in general of the politics.  One family transferred their GATE daughter to the magnet program and she was miserable.  The amount of work, pressure, and hours of homework each night and every weekend left her NO time for much else.  She was in tears nightly. She asked to come back to her home school, and the GATE school said "well, no, we've decided the only spot for you is school C". (Incidentally, my home school which scores a 1 or 2 out of 10 and is 95% English learner.)

OTOH, one of our neighbors has a 6th grader, and he was NOT challenged in 5th, for a couple of reasons.  He got the "weaker" 5th grade teacher and there weren't as many advanced kids in his class (he was the only one).  It seems like they go in waves.  With the open transfer policy, there are some grades where parents transfer out right off the bat.  But other years there is not space, and they are "stuck".  In our school, so far, this year it seems like the grade entering 6th is weaker.  But 5th, 4th, and 3rd are really strong.

I live in CA, and appearance is *very* important to people.  I have to say, I've gotten many pitying looks from parents when they find out the school we attend.  For reference, the school rankings:

A: 9/10 (GATE magnet part of this school)
B: 9/10
C: 8/10
D: 6/10
E: 5/10 (the school my son attends, which is also the magnet program for the disabled)
F: 4/10 (the crunchy alternative school)
G: 4/10 (the Spanish immersion alternative school)
H: 3/10
I: 3/10
J: 3/10
K: 3/10
L: 2/10 (our home school)

H-L are predominantly Latino and English learner and poor by demographics.

There's no reason for pity.  I don't quite understand it.

[mozar]

What part of the country out of curiosity? I hate that bullshit, can't believe we're still dealing with it, but here we are.

[chubbybunny]

Since we're all judging schools solely by their test scores, I'll jump in.  The last thing I would ever subject my children to is a 9 or 10 rated school.  Full of hyper competitive helicopter parents, teachers who have no room for anyone that isn't focused on getting into the top colleges.  Just for reference, I've got a masters in education and 2 kids, both special needs. 

We moved to a distant suburb of Atlanta and I had 2 rules for picking our school district. 1, it needs at least some diversity.  Doesn't have to be 50% black or latino, but minimum of 10% non-white.   2. the RATIO of test scores to % free lunch.  Let me explain that one.

There is actually no statistical significance between test scores and race.  Yes, it's true. Be careful what you judge about different schools!  The strongest predictor of test scores we have is pretty much how much money your parents have. It's the closest indicator there is to predicting those scores. 

If you can do a scatter plot of the schools in your area, compare the % of kids getting free lunch with the % passing their standardized tests.  You will probably find some outliers in either direction.  That is where you can find the best school and weed out the poor ones.  You want one that stands out with higher test scores compared to schools with SIMILAR levels of poverty.  Go visit the school and see what they've got going on...

If you're still paying attention after all that, I've got one final piece of advice.  None of what I just said really matters!!!  If you are an involved parent and can provide resources to help your child succeed, this is a much better predictor of their success than what school they attend.

[Redstone5]

I have a thing against private schools because they advertise that their students do so well academically because of their great educational programs, but they artificially raise the grade average of their classes by giving scholarships to the brightest students that they poach from the public school system.

In reality, most private schools don't magically create poor students into better ones, they just take a lot of money from the rich parents of bad students by holding out that hope.

However, putting a poor student into an environment with smaller class sizes and surrounding them with good students who have parents who can pay for tutoring and every other educational opportunity may help a poor student academically, so there is that too.  I just don't think that a fancy building, uniforms, and privately paid teachers automatically make for high achieving students. It really pays to investigate the actual programs they run.

But then, where I live the public school system is excellent across the region and our public school teachers are very well paid so maybe I would think private school more worthwhile if I lived in other places.

[Redstone5]

Also, I've always thought that if I had $18,000/year to send my kid to private school, the money would be better spent on tutoring while at public school and then spending every summer traveling the world. That's a better educational value for a child in my opinion.

I have three kids, so if I actually had the $54,000/year to spend on private school for all three, I would just quit my job and home school. I can't understand why parents would rather keep their kids in private school than FI.

[mtn]

I have a thing against private schools because they advertise that their students do so well academically because of their great educational programs, but they artificially raise the grade average of their classes by giving scholarships to the brightest students that they poach from the public school system.

In reality, most private schools don't magically create poor students into better ones, they just take a lot of money from the rich parents of bad students by holding out that hope.

However, putting a poor student into an environment with smaller class sizes and surrounding them with good students who have parents who can pay for tutoring and every other educational opportunity may help a poor student academically, so there is that too.  I just don't think that a fancy building, uniforms, and privately paid teachers automatically make for high achieving students. It really pays to investigate the actual programs they run.

But then, where I live the public school system is excellent across the region and our public school teachers are very well paid so maybe I would think private school more worthwhile if I lived in other places.

Around here (Chicago suburbs) the private schools are almost all religious schools (mostly Catholic). The one I'm familiar gives out scholarships only to those who are extremely, extremely gifted, and they don't give that many--probably less than 5% of the students, if it is even that high. Additionally, their grading scale is more difficult than the area public schools.

(I went to the public school, my brother to the Catholic school, because what was right for him wasn't right for me)

[CrimsonStache]

Since we're all judging schools solely by their test scores, I'll jump in.  The last thing I would ever subject my children to is a 9 or 10 rated school.  Full of hyper competitive helicopter parents, teachers who have no room for anyone that isn't focused on getting into the top colleges.  Just for reference, I've got a masters in education and 2 kids, both special needs. 

We moved to a distant suburb of Atlanta and I had 2 rules for picking our school district. 1, it needs at least some diversity.  Doesn't have to be 50% black or latino, but minimum of 10% non-white.   2. the RATIO of test scores to % free lunch.  Let me explain that one.

There is actually no statistical significance between test scores and race.  Yes, it's true. Be careful what you judge about different schools!  The strongest predictor of test scores we have is pretty much how much money your parents have. It's the closest indicator there is to predicting those scores. 

If you can do a scatter plot of the schools in your area, compare the % of kids getting free lunch with the % passing their standardized tests.  You will probably find some outliers in either direction.  That is where you can find the best school and weed out the poor ones.  You want one that stands out with higher test scores compared to schools with SIMILAR levels of poverty.  Go visit the school and see what they've got going on...

If you're still paying attention after all that, I've got one final piece of advice.  None of what I just said really matters!!!  If you are an involved parent and can provide resources to help your child succeed, this is a much better predictor of their success than what school they attend.

That is brilliant!

I lived in Atlanta for a few months a few years ago. I am not an expert on Atlanta, but it seems that inside the beltway it is very difficult to find a suitable public school. Is that true in your experience?

[Cranky]

If you're still paying attention after all that, I've got one final piece of advice.  None of what I just said really matters!!!  If you are an involved parent and can provide resources to help your child succeed, this is a much better predictor of their success than what school they attend.

Bingo! And that's why I knew that my kids were going to get a great education, whether we lived in the "good" school district or not. Dh and I are both highly educated. We read to the kids. We did educational activities. We took them to the library every week. We took them interesting places.

Our school system did not have tons of extracurricular activities, but that's okay - we did that stuff at home anyway. We organized that stuff at school, for that matter (I coached DI year after year, so my kids could have a team.)

I don't think that AP classes are that highly regarded anymore. As schools push more kids into them, they mean less. In this area, the top kids are more likely to enroll in dual credit classes, whether they are taught in the high school or at the university.

One of my kids was highly gifted (she was a National Merit finalist) and she ended up going to an International School for two years (free!), so we were able to find a program that fit her needs, too.

I teach in the only non-religious private school in the county, and we accept the state vouchers, and I'm going to tell you - it's not about the schools. It's about the parents. Education is not a passive activity. You don't just put a kid in a "better" classroom and hope for some magic dust to settle - it's really what the kid is willing to do, and that boils down to the family 99% of the time.

[mtn]

I don't think that AP classes are that highly regarded anymore. As schools push more kids into them, they mean less. In this area, the top kids are more likely to enroll in dual credit classes, whether they are taught in the high school or at the university.

Why would they matter less based on the enrollment? I'd say that if a high percentage of the students are getting 4's and 5's on the AP Exams, the enrollment size doesn't matter.

And FWIW, I view dual-credit classes almost as the same as AP. The only added benefit (which can also be a drawback) is that it can help boost the GPA in college, whereas AP is just for credit.

(I came into college with 11 credit hours)

[Lagom]

If it's an option near you, one path that can make your child stand out is attending an International Baccalaureate school. I have an IB diploma and I was getting recruitment letters from places like Cambridge because of it. In the US, it was viewed kind of weirdly, I'll grant. I definitely think it helped me get into better schools, but a lot of them didn't give me as much college credit as I would have had through an AP program. To get an IB diploma, you have to pass 6 tests, 3 of which are based on 2 years of content, but at the time (15 years ago now so hopefully this has changed), I could only get course credit for the 2 year classes. I can promise you the 1 year classes are just as rigorous as an AP class, so this was rather frustrating.

Ironically, I got a better offer from Cambridge (I would have started college as a sophomore) than I did from any of the US schools I applied to (although I chose to stay in the US). That said, I felt better prepared for college level work than many of my friends from AP programs,. I'm not bagging on AP, I think it does a decent enough job, but it's worth looking into IB to see what you think. Depending on their major, some high achievers can even run into a problem with having too many extra credits from AP, so that's worth being aware of as well.

[mtn]

 That said, I felt better prepared for college level work than many of my friends from AP programs,. I'm not bagging on AP, I think it does a decent enough job, but it's worth looking into IB to see what you think. Depending on their major, some high achievers can even run into a problem with having too many extra credits from AP, so that's worth being aware of as well.

My AP classes were without exception about twice as rigorous as similar college classes. I think that has a lot to do with the individual teachers though.

[Lagom]

 That said, I felt better prepared for college level work than many of my friends from AP programs,. I'm not bagging on AP, I think it does a decent enough job, but it's worth looking into IB to see what you think. Depending on their major, some high achievers can even run into a problem with having too many extra credits from AP, so that's worth being aware of as well.

My AP classes were without exception about twice as rigorous as similar college classes. I think that has a lot to do with the individual teachers though.

Like I said, I'm not knocking AP and I totally agree individual teachers matter. The nice thing about IB vs AP is that the overall IB curriculum is more standardized, and not as focused on the test (although passing the test is still the end goal and I am aware many AP teachers go well above and beyond basic test prep). This means it's more likely that no matter which IB school you go to, you'll have strong exposure to college level work in every major subject (to get an IB diploma you have to pass tests in English, History, Math, one of the sciences, foreign language, and an elective).

Regardless of all that, I am not claiming IB > AP, just that it's at least as good (clearly better if you want to study abroad), and it will differentiate your child from other applicants, since IB diplomas are much rarer in the applicant pool than high AP scores. All of that said, I'm sending my own children to a regular high school, so please don't take this as some sort of attack on AP :)

[Cranky]

I don't think that AP classes are that highly regarded anymore. As schools push more kids into them, they mean less. In this area, the top kids are more likely to enroll in dual credit classes, whether they are taught in the high school or at the university.

Why would they matter less based on the enrollment? I'd say that if a high percentage of the students are getting 4's and 5's on the AP Exams, the enrollment size doesn't matter.

And FWIW, I view dual-credit classes almost as the same as AP. The only added benefit (which can also be a drawback) is that it can help boost the GPA in college, whereas AP is just for credit.

(I came into college with 11 credit hours)

Because in order to make those classes work for a larger pool of kids (and there's always been an argument that they are elitist) they've had to water them down. So typically, a large percentage of students are NOT getting 4s and 5s on the exams, and overall, colleges don't consider them as indicative of high academic achievement as they used to.

And of course - you don't actually have to take an AP class to take the AP exam, so that's always an option.

If you take an AP class and don't do well on the exam, you've got... nothing. If you take the dual credit course, you've taken the actual college class and you've got a solid credit and the state has paid for it.

I don't make the trends, I just report them!

[VladTheImpaler]

What does MMM say about school districts? What is the MMM wisdom on this?

This is always a very popular discussion on city-data dot com and there is lots of info specific to whatever geographic area you are in.
I think MMM's wisdom on this is made pretty clear that he prefers getting rid of the "sucker" commute in favor of more walking and biking.
But the decision is about a lot more than saving dollars and cents. Where you live has a huge effect on your quality of life and it is important to live where you truly feel comfortable and safe.
That being said, I think that moving to an inner-city urban area with requirements for certain percentage rates of diversity is complete nonsense.
I don't agree with concept of diversity for the sake of diversity. My child will get plenty of diversity in all measurable metrics (age, race, religion, nationality) without me actively looking to artificially plant her in a diverse environment.
In my previous job I did a lot of work in schools. I traveled across the country to various schools.
I can tell you without a doubt that the overall environment, safety, and attitude was better in wealthier schools, regardless of location.
It's not a black issue. It's not a white issue. It's a GREEN issue. period.

[charis]

What does MMM say about school districts? What is the MMM wisdom on this?

This is always a very popular discussion on city-data dot com and there is lots of info specific to whatever geographic area you are in.
I think MMM's wisdom on this is made pretty clear that he prefers getting rid of the "sucker" commute in favor of more walking and biking.
But the decision is about a lot more than saving dollars and cents. Where you live has a huge effect on your quality of life and it is important to live where you truly feel comfortable and safe.
That being said, I think that moving to an inner-city urban area with requirements for certain percentage rates of diversity is complete nonsense.
I don't agree with concept of diversity for the sake of diversity. My child will get plenty of diversity in all measurable metrics (age, race, religion, nationality) without me actively looking to artificially plant her in a diverse environment.
In my previous job I did a lot of work in schools. I traveled across the country to various schools.
I can tell you without a doubt that the overall environment, safety, and attitude was better in wealthier schools, regardless of location.
It's not a black issue. It's not a white issue. It's a GREEN issue. period.

It's a class issue, which tends to run along racial lines we were are talking about inner city education.   Public education will continue to fail poor children unless integration is made a priority. 

[esq]

What does MMM say about school districts? What is the MMM wisdom on this?

This is always a very popular discussion on city-data dot com and there is lots of info specific to whatever geographic area you are in.
I think MMM's wisdom on this is made pretty clear that he prefers getting rid of the "sucker" commute in favor of more walking and biking.
But the decision is about a lot more than saving dollars and cents. Where you live has a huge effect on your quality of life and it is important to live where you truly feel comfortable and safe.
That being said, I think that moving to an inner-city urban area with requirements for certain percentage rates of diversity is complete nonsense.
I don't agree with concept of diversity for the sake of diversity. My child will get plenty of diversity in all measurable metrics (age, race, religion, nationality) without me actively looking to artificially plant her in a diverse environment.
In my previous job I did a lot of work in schools. I traveled across the country to various schools.
I can tell you without a doubt that the overall environment, safety, and attitude was better in wealthier schools, regardless of location.
It's not a black issue. It's not a white issue. It's a GREEN issue. period.

Short version:  I teach in an inner city charter school.  I love my kids, I work with them, help them, talk to them, hear their problems, and think about them all the time.  For the most part, they are good kids.  Did I mention I love them?  They come from broken, abusive homes, and poverty.  I am surrounded by some of the most wonderful, caring, able teachers anywhere.  But I would never let my own children go here.  Too much of the school day is spent on classroom management and not teaching, and in general administration is not supportive of teachers.  There are other reasons but this is the short version.

In the school district where we live, there are top rated schools, and also schools like the one mentioned above where I teach.  You need to look at the individual school (are the teachers happy there, with a supportive principal?  how is good behavior encouraged?  is there a scripted curriculum?  is there a gt program? etc.) , and the individual teacher, as opposed to just looking at the district.    My kids' elementary school was a wonderful, diversified place to learn.  Most of the teachers were great, but a few definitely did NOT want to be there.  We are also very fortunate our district has a wonderful early college high school program that both my kids qualified for.  Small, diversified, challenging high school where no one falls through the cracks.

Best of luck in whatever you choose.