good schools for kids, does it matter?

[annod]

Hi,

In my area, neighborhoods with good schools usu. means more expensive houses, or they are way in the suburbs which means long commute. 

Sure, neighborhoods with good schools (at least where we live) usually mean they are safer neighborhoods, or maybe in more desirable places (walkable/ bikeable, safe enough for kids to ride bikes on their own etc.)  Parents are willing to pay more for houses or endure longer commutes to get their kids into good school districts.

But do good schools really mean a better education or better school experience for your kids?  Will I be doing my kids disservice by sending him to a 3/10 (academic rating) school vs moving to a different neighborhood with 9/10 school?

[sol]

This is a heated debate in our household. 

I'm of the opinion that a kid's academic success is much more dependent on parental involvement  and support than on the test scores of other kids at his school, which is what determines those rankings.

My wife thinks she would be a failure as a parent to send the kids anywhere except the absolute best school in town.

We don't argue over much, but whenever she decides to fight she always wins.  We currently live very close to a poorly-ranked school, and it's only a matter of time until we move. 

Happy wife, happy life.

[golden1]

I think as long as the school is at least decent, parental involvement will matter more. 

You also have to take a really good look at the school rankings and the breakdowns.  Our elementary school was the "worst" in our town, but it was still ranked a 6/10.  However, our middle schools and high school are ranked 8/10.  Our district has more non-English speakers, which I think is part of the reason why the ranking may be lower.  I think my daughter, who just went into 6th grade got a great education there.  Since we are in this town (barring a crisis) until they graduate, the upper grade scores were more important.  So we live in a house that is 2/3 the price of the houses in the "best" elementary school district, and my kids will still get an overall top notch education. 

[Carrie]

Maybe on the plus side if your kid goes to a poorly ranked school they'll be able to be the top in the class?
We're in the best district in our poorly ranked state; the school is good -- kid is happy, but I'm still disappointed at how easy the work is for my kid.  So, I can either shell out $15k per year for elementary education at a really great private school, or I can supplement at home.  To be truly mustachian, I'm encouraging extra reading, extra puzzles and lots of deep conversation that I'm sure not many of his classmates have to endure.

[2527]

Our kids are in one of the very best school districts in a state with good school.  There are lots of problems we just don't have.  Good teachers, small class sizes, good facilities, everybody oriented to academic achievement. 

Houses are more expensive, but we have a smallish house in the school district.

Only downside it is full of competitive, high-achieving people with high incomes and high opinions of themselves.  Dealing with those things can be a source of stress.

[Lans Holman]

I would say that of course good schools matter but that anyone who tries to reduce a school to a 1 to 10 rating is kidding themself.  For example, how do you rate a school that has tons of great courses for college bound kids but at the least sign of trouble isn't helpful at all?  Depends on your kids, I suppose.  Or you could have a school that's in a rough neighborhood but does a great job at helping all their kids improve.  Might not look good when you look at the test scores but it could still be a wonderful place. 
Then of course, you should think about what you are sacrificing to live in that more expensive neighborhood.  If the cost you pay for that theoretically better school is going to be significant in terms of hours every week or whole years of your life that you don't get to spend with your kids because you're too busy working to pay that bigger mortgage, it's a pretty fair question whether that is worth it. 

[Gerard]

It's a messy question. Definitions of "good" schools vary widely, depending on the country and the testing methods. I get the sense that "good school" is often realtor code for "wealthy-ish neighbourhood". And the gap between rich-people schools and poor-people schools also varies a fair whack depending on where you are (Iceland and Canada small gap, France and USA big gap, according to the OECD).

[naners]

It might depend on your kid. Are they doing well academically? Probably ok in a "less good" school. But if they're struggling, being in a class with lots of other struggling kids might not be best.

[RetiredAt63]

It helps to define what your educational goals are.  If you have the choice, it is nice to be able to pick a school that helps your child's strengths as well as weaknesses.

Our daughter went to the regular public school for elementary school, with mixed results.  It was a good school, good area, good school board.  A lot depends on the individual teacher.  Our daughter was told in kindergarten that she would learn to read in grade one, so she hid for a year that she already knew how to read. We did lots at home before she ever got to school, letters, reading at bedtime, asking questions that made her observe and think about things, lots of physical activity, outdoor time (she had 3 acres of woods to roam).

Her local high school was OK, but not enough French, so she went to a local private French high school (classical college, over 150 years old now).  She came out fluently bilingual, she learned as much as she would have at her local English high school and more than her local French high school (it did not have a good reputation). She also had access to more extra-curricular activities.  There was a uniform, so there was less emphasis on looks/dress and more on academics and activities.  We were very happy with it.



 

[mpbaker22]

Maybe on the plus side if your kid goes to a poorly ranked school they'll be able to be the top in the class?

A good point.  Maybe your kid won't know quite as much as HS grads from the good districts, but they're college transcripts will show a high amount of adversity (and they'll know more about real life too).

[Undecided]

Maybe on the plus side if your kid goes to a poorly ranked school they'll be able to be the top in the class?

A good point.  Maybe your kid won't know quite as much as HS grads from the good districts, but they're college transcripts will show a high amount of adversity (and they'll know more about real life too).

Where does real life end and fake life begin?

[Joshin]

It depends on so many variables. Why is the school ranked low? Some schools offer an excellent education but the teachers don't teach to the test, so they show low scores. Others have great teachers but not the best students/student families to work with. Then others just outright suck and you'd best run far, far away.

Things to check out: Interview the principal. Yep, just like you were interviewing for a private school. I did this and opted out of our midranked local school. Is there an active parent group (PTG, PTA, PTO, whatever they're calling it). If so, that's usually a good sign. What about teacher turnover? Low turnover means you have good teachers working with a difficult population. This could still be a problem, depending on why it's difficult, but is much easier to work with than poor teachers.

Finally, if your child has any special educational needs (on either end of the spectrum -- from learning challenges to gifted), don't expect the school to be helpful. They may have great programs, but don't count on it. Not even good schools are guaranteed to serve these students well.

After-schooling is a good option if you want to give the school a try. Tons of info on it if you run a search. "The Well-Trained Mind," although a homeschooling book, also has an excellent section on after-schooling.

[galliver]

I think it depends on whether the student will take advantage of what the school offers. My sister and I got to choose our high schools (family moved and we could pick where to rent). We both picked based on interesting courses (often, AP courses) available. She chose a school with a ranking of 7 over one ranked 10 because she knew what classes she wanted to take there. I picked four that offered equally plentiful options (an 8 and 3x 10's) and let my mom choose from there.

I walked into college with 54 credit hours of classwork due to AP testing-that's 17 college classes. By the end of freshman year I was a full year ahead; I could have graduated a whole year early (I didn't for various reasons including a four-year scholarship. But someone concerned with tuition money could.)  This wasn't my accomplishment or my parents' alone; the availability of such programs at the schools I went to played a definite role.

But, when it comes to private schools...middle school classmates that went to the swankiest private school in the area are doing no better or worse than those who went public. Pretty much everyone is working a productive job or in graduate studies. Except some of our parents are $200k richer. :)

[Nords]

But do good schools really mean a better education or better school experience for your kids?  Will I be doing my kids disservice by sending him to a 3/10 (academic rating) school vs moving to a different neighborhood with 9/10 school?

There seems to be an assumption that it's the responsibility of the school system to educate our kids, and then we're crawling further out on that limb by assuming that we can actually determine the quality of the school's education by their "rankings".

Some of the "good" schools get that way by groupthink or a virtuous circle.  (Hey, whatever works.)  A school gets a good reputation, so parents bid up the local real estate to live there.  The tax base rises, and the parents confirm the wisdom of their decision by getting more involved in the school.  The school gets better if for no other reason than parents are paying more attention (and money) to it. 

Other schools are "good" because their demographics are easy.  The neighborhood is generally wealthy, the kids all speak a common language (like English), and the teachers are treated well by the administration.  Sounds pretty rare to me.

I think the quality of a kid's education is based on four things:
1.  They're happy at the school.  Some kids would be happy at any school, others just aren't suited for any school environment.
2.  The parents are involved:  taking an interest in the kid's academics (and homework), showing up at the school, engaging the teachers, volunteering for field trips.  There seems to be a correlation between the school knowing the parents and the school paying more attention to the kids.
3.  How many AP classes the district high school offers.  Hawaii teachers get paid extra for qualifying to grade AP exams and teach AP classes, so the best teachers tend to gravitate toward the schools offering more AP classes.
4.  How close you live to the school.  We've mostly lived within a mile of our kid's school.  It made it easy for her to stay after for teacher help, study groups, extracurricular activities, and socializing.  It also made it easier for her to be totally responsible for getting there on time and for remembering to bring home all her materials.  "Oh, you forgot your physics book?  Better hustle your bike over there before it rains-- bye!"

Hawaii has an undeservedly poor reputation for its public schools, and parents make huge sacrifices to get their kids into private schools.  It's hard to tell that those sacrifices are worth it.  Meanwhile our kid graduated at the top of one of the the island's largest public schools (along with ~40 other "top" kids) and is holding her own at one of the nation's top engineering schools.  It's hard to do a double-blind control study of what really makes a student succeed at a school, but those four factors seem to be pretty important-- both by their presence and by their absence.

In addition to the above our kid was very interested in Kumon (both math & reading), so we supported it.  We focused on her taking the right AP classes in high school for the college majors she wanted.  We found a sport that that balanced her academic workload and her free time-- taekwondo instead of high-school basketball.  I'm pretty sure the black belt gave her a bonus point or two on her college application, and it was a lot easier to stand out that way than to be the top basketball player.

We also gave her the illusion of choice, which forced her to commit to her decisions.  When she'd come home all pissed off about some school project or teen drama or angst, then I'd reassure her:
Me:  "It's OK, honey, if you don't like school then you don't have to go there anymore."
Her:  (Incredulously)  "No sh- I mean, really Dad?!?  Thanks!!"
Me:  "Sure!  We'll start 'Dad's Homeschool' tomorrow, and I think you'll be a lot happier with a 1:1 teacher-student ratio.  But we can homeschool your friends here too, if you want."
Her:  "Um, thanks, Dad, but, gee, I think I'll see how tomorrow goes... I'll let you know..."

[escolegrove]

Nords, you made me smile and brought back good memories. My dad was the same way!!

[Tyler]

+1 to Nords.

How many here went to great / bad schools?  Did it matter to you?

I went to a below average high school in an average school district -- one that was on the receiving end of funds redistributed from wealthy districts.  Funny thing is -- I never really knew that until I went to college and met kids from top public and private schools. 

I graduated college with better grades than most of those kids.  And I've been very successful in my career.  For me, work ethic and genuine interest in education was much more valuable than rankings for schools gone by.  Personally, I'm thankful my parents didn't go into huge debt to send me to a private school as I don't think it would have made a difference to me.

[girly mustache]

Great question - it's one I've pondered a lot. Apologies up front - I'm a bit long winded on this subject. I live in a very working class city. The school disctrict struggles - in fact that state took the management of whole district over a few years ago... School scores are very  low. Much of the population are English as a second language learners- this certainly effects the scores. I bought a house here before I even considered having a kid.. Technically, I could send my daughter to a high ranking local private school. Or I could send her to another district closer to where I work that has excellent scores... In the end, my analysis came down to:

1) Met the principle at the local school and LOVED her - she is awesome and I knew right away that I bought into her.
2) The local school is only in it's second school year when my daughter started - there were 2 classes each of Kinder, and 1st grade before she started - all the teachers, the principal and the staff knew every student by name. All the parents got to know each other because the school was small (each year we get larger -- but my daughter has had 2 years so far with a very small group).
3) The local school opened as a dual immersion Spanish/English school - my daughter will be fully bi-lingual and bi-literate by 5th grade - this was an awesome bonus for me.
4)The school is close to our house- so she meets friends and can have play dates and see them at camps,etc during summer. Her daycare/preschool was close to my work - so it was a big trip for her to go on playdates, etc...
5) The schools by where I work are great --but it would add an extra 2 hours onto our total commute time each day (the school is about 20 minutes past my work). This would significally impact our time together -- and increase our commute. We already leave the house at 8 and return about 6:30pm - so it would suck to extend our day any longer....
6) If she went to the school past my work - it would be difficult for her to have casual playdates - everything would have to be well planned because of the distance.
7) The local private schools, while well ranked, did not offer the dual immersion language program and because of the cost - we'd have to reduce our "extras" - like travel, lessons, etc.. to cover this.

In the end, I went with the local dual immersion school - my daughter loves it, she has friends, she sees the friends on playdates and during the holiday "camps" - she is receiving an excellent education! Her teachers are all very warm and mothering with all the kids - we know all the parents and teachers... The before/after school program has them reading stories (or being read to), lots of outside play, lots of crafts and lots of board games, no TV - and a very loving and warm staff. I honestly feel like we completely lucked out with this awesome - low scoring school :)

I also much agree with Sol - I think school is one part of a great education and raising great kids - parental involvement, reading together, discovering the world  and traveling together is another piece, sports that they like, music and art - are all other pieces... There is no single school that can (or should) do it all....

A good friend of mine has 2 daughters - her oldest daughter thrives in a private school - she needs the regimine that the school provides. Her younger daughter had a very difficult time at the same school and is now thriving in one of the local public schools - one thing I learned from her is that it is not a one size fits all - you have to look at your kids and make sure they are in an environment that works for them and that they can thrive in.

Lastly, I grew up in a upper middle class neighborhood and went to a very high scoring and nationally recognized public high school and state college. I had every opportunity - sports, music, travel... And I am a mid level manager... I enjoy and am satisfied with my job -- but do not have much desire to move up the ladder - it's just not the way I'm wired - and all the great schools I attended does not change that. I'm pretty interested in my daughter perhaps taking a gap year after high school (we'll see who she is becoming and where she is interested in heading in life before making any decisions) -- but I kinda think "deciding" what you want to do when you're 18 and have only lived with your parents previously is a bit premature. I think spending a well planned gap year may make college more meaningful and put you in a better position to make decisions at college and about your future... Anyway, these are my thoughts...

[pbkmaine]

I grew up in an area with poor public schools, so I was sent first to mediocre religious schools, where I was bullied, and then to a nonsectarian private girls' school, where I had wonderful teachers and classmates and felt nurtured and loved. I am still in touch with my classmates now, almost 40 years later, and they are extraordinary women. Parents can do a lot, but school environment is important, too. My school treated each one of us as if we were gifted, although with different gifts, and wanted us to go out into the world and share those gifts. I do not think that you need to go to a private school to have that experience, and I also don't think your school needs to have great test scores or super competitiveness. In fact, I think those things can prevent a great education rather than enhance it. What you might want to look for is a sense of mission.

[mpbaker22]

Maybe on the plus side if your kid goes to a poorly ranked school they'll be able to be the top in the class?

A good point.  Maybe your kid won't know quite as much as HS grads from the good districts, but they're college transcripts will show a high amount of adversity (and they'll know more about real life too).

Where does real life end and fake life begin?

IMO, many parents attempt to shelter their kids from the real world.  They put their kids in a safe house, on a safe street, in a safe neighborhood, in a safe suburb, so their kids can go to a safe school in a safe town ... children shouldn't be put in dangerous situations, but at some point they need to realize it's all fake and made up.  It's not how 99% of the world lives.

This is what I mean that these kids often don't know what real life is.  Also, IMO, it's a real part of the anti-mustachian culture.

[Bank]

I went to a mediocre rural school with a couple of fabulous teachers.  Sadly, none of the fabulous teachers were in science and math.  My parents were very strong in the social sciences and humanities, but weak in the natural sciences, so I developed the same way.

The result was that when I arrived at my very selective liberal arts college (which, admittedly, I may have only gotten into because of my poor rural background) I found myself miles behind my peers in science and math.  Despite an interest in the subjects and a semester in which I almost worked myself to death, I barely made it through Intro Chemistry and dropped Intro Biology.  I've got a great life and career, but I do wish I'd had more of chance to succeed at engineering, science, math, and medicine.  I still feel like I missed out a little bit.

So, I guess my takeaway from this is that I will ensure that my kids get proper exposure to all subjects when they're young.  In the areas that I'm weakest, I'll be sure there's someone there to pick up the slack -- either at school or through private tutoring.

[Mr.Macinstache]

I know a few really bad teachers that can ruin a good school.

An involved parent can trump a bad school or bad teacher. It makes it harder on the parent.

[TrulyStashin]

Maybe on the plus side if your kid goes to a poorly ranked school they'll be able to be the top in the class?

A good point.  Maybe your kid won't know quite as much as HS grads from the good districts, but they're college transcripts will show a high amount of adversity (and they'll know more about real life too).

First, colleges account for this in their admission process.  They know which high schools are more challenging and which are less challenging and a valedictorian from a poorly performing school will not be better off in the admission process because admissions officers know that that valedictorian is still not as well prepared as a middle ranked student from a school with a high degree of challenge built into its curriculum.

Second, it's important that your child be well prepared for life, in general.  That requires hard work, discipline, and regularly occurring intellectual challenges across a wide variety of disciplines.  High performing schools tend to offer more challenges courses -- more AP options; IB classes; ROTC programs; advanced languages with more choices (Arabic, Chinese for example); better and more challenging electives (architectural drafting, anyone?).  Lower performing schools have less funding (generally), lower parent support and less student interest in a broad and challenging curriculum.   Lower performing schools do not provide the same level of preparation and often discipline is a chronic issue.  As a former teacher, I can attest that having a class full of discipline problems sapped my ability to teach.

Third, discipline problems can take many different forms.  At the low-income side of the spectrum, a teacher is more likely to deal with open and obvious discipline issues -- kids won't sit still; they fight; they throw stuff; they talk; they don't show up; their parent (usually single, which I hate to say because I'm a single mom, but it's true.) often does not care/ doesn't see the problem/ or is so overwhelmed with life and can't stop the problem, etc.  At the high-income side of the spectrum, they often approach the world with an entitled and arrogant attitude; they have plenty of money and spare time for drugs & alcohol; they are overly invested in having the perfect shoes rather than writing the perfect poem; they often have parents whose attitude is "not MY precious darling", etc.    Both of these kinds of discipline problems are cured with parental involvement, so finding a school with a high degree of parental involvement -- regardless of demographics -- is key. 

Fourth, consider the peer group your child will be spending vast chunks of time with.  You want a student body with the majority of kids knowing how to interact in constructive, respectful, appropriate ways ("Please don't do that" vs. "Who you lookin' at?!") because your kid WILL learn what they see, regardless of your home environment.  It should also tilt toward a high percentage of college-after-high school admissions because that student body is more likely to provide intellectual challenge and the air the kids breathe every day (so to speak) encourages intellectual growth and acquiring skills.  Note that this can go too far and you get kids who are overly competitive, but that's more rare than having a student body were a low percentage of students are going on to college.  In the low-percentage student body, these kids are more likely to have no clue what they're doing after graduation.  They're not thinking about the future, in general.  They are not motivated to learn or gain skills because they don't have clear goals and the drop out rate is higher.  The air they breathe focuses on Friday night's party, not Saturday morning's SAT test. 

All of these factors make huge differences in how your child will perceive "reality" and how they will evolve into adulthood.  It is probably the toughest and most important parenting decision we will ever make.

[katheh]

There is a difference between poor schools and dangerous schools.

We live in a "poor" district. Individual school standardized test scores are not high due to the vast population of non-English speaking or ESL students. However, in IL "poor" means resources. For example my kid (our youngest) in middle school received a significant # of hours for language arts (English) tutoring even though we are native English speakers. He simply does not do well in that subject (natch: he entered HS this year as a 3rd year AP Spanish student, go figure). All 3 of our kids have received a quality education so far and while there are typical drug/alcohol problems at the High School it is well controlled and the kids agree it's not like it's "everywhere." It's easy to avoid.

Next town over, one of the highest per-capita incomes in the state, all 4 high schools have a significant, devastating heroin problem and it is spreading to their middle schools.

Buying into a more expensive area isn't always the answer. Our school system is mostly rural or exurban. I grew up on a farm, so when it was time to pick an area to live for the kids for schools, I stuck with the devil I know. Country problems are not always the same as city problems, and knowing where the problems are in a population of 20k is much easier than knowing where they are in a population of 250k.

[totoro]

Schools matter to a point, but so do teachers and parent involvement matters even more. 

A good school is something I am willing to pay more to be close to.  My kids go to public and not private school and that has worked out fine.  A "good" school means that there is quite a bit of parent involvement and teachers and students have some extra support when needed.  It also means that drugs/alcohol/crime rates are relatively low amongst the student population. 

The friends aspect has been a very important and influential thing for my kids.  They have been in school with the same kids their whole lives and the relationships are positive.  Nice kids are everywhere, but stability for these relationships seems important to me.

What you have less control over is the teacher, which changes year to year and may change several time during the year if there is, for example, a maternity leave.  If you have a poor teacher or lots of change in the year then you have to pick up the slack as a parent. That can be tough.

[galaxie]

Kids' school performance is heavily influenced by how well-off their parents are, and how involved their parents are in their education.  Also, weirdly, how many books they have in their house.  http://publishingperspectives.com/2013/06/want-kids-to-succeed-at-school-stock-your-home-with-books/

We don't have kids yet, but we've chosen to live in a city that has "just ok" school test scores.  When you look at the neighborhoods, the schools with low test scores are in a lower-income neighborhood and a neighborhood with a lot of English language learners, but the schools' services and programs are just fine.

We're counting on the idea that we'll be able to build a community of smart, creative, caring adults to encourage our kids' interest in learning.  We already have one. If our kids become really interested in art/math/science/whatever later in their school years and want something our local schools don't have, we can send them to a variety of nearby private schools or extracurricular activities. 

[mpbaker22]

Maybe on the plus side if your kid goes to a poorly ranked school they'll be able to be the top in the class?

A good point.  Maybe your kid won't know quite as much as HS grads from the good districts, but they're college transcripts will show a high amount of adversity (and they'll know more about real life too).

First, colleges account for this in their admission process.  They know which high schools are more challenging and which are less challenging and a valedictorian from a poorly performing school will not be better off in the admission process because admissions officers know that that valedictorian is still not as well prepared as a middle ranked student from a school with a high degree of challenge built into its curriculum.

Well that's not exactly true, but when you state something as fact, it's hard to argue it.  Yes, more students will be accepted from the higher caliber school, but a middle ranked student from a good school will not be seen the same as a valedictorian from a poor school, unless the good school is one of the top-ranked, nationally.

[DoubleDown]

But do good schools really mean a better education or better school experience for your kids?

No, it all depends on so many other things as already listed above

  Will I be doing my kids disservice by sending him to a 3/10 (academic rating) school vs moving to a different neighborhood with 9/10 school?

No. In fact you might be doing them a favor for many reasons. Particularly if you organize your life in a better way by saving more money (e.g., if you can be home with them before and after school in 5-10 years because you retired early)

[Dee18]

The answer may vary depending on the child, but in my family's experience, peers matter a lot in high school.  My introverted, well behaved daughter never got called on in our highly ranked public schools. With classes of 25 students, teachers were busy with the talkers.  She got all low As with moderate effort....but I could tell she wasn't being challenged by the teachers and she wasn't challenging herself.  In 8th grade she switched to private school.  Her assessment, "At (public school) it wasn't cool to be smart; at (private school) it isn't cool to be dumb.  I have a lot to learn."  She has blossomed.  With small classes, she gets called on.  She has a group of girlfriends that study together, often at the school library where they can stay until 5:00. Last year she decided to take a year of Latin, in addition to Mandarin and Spanish, because she thought she should know a bit of it.  One of her teachers encouraged her to run for school secretary, saying they needed someone organized and dependable. And she made the tennis team.  She has fallen in love with chemistry and is a lab assistant this year.  Her school is a lot of money, and worth every penny. Best of all, this school has given her both choices and responsibilities....our public high schools are not nearly as flexible.

[sol]

My crappy public high school didn't have a lot of things I wanted (math team, Science Olympiad, calc BC class) until I showed up and created them. 

A motivated student, with proper parental support, will never be limited by a crappy school.  The converse isn't true.

[lentilman]

Schools matter, as anyone who has ever attended a school can attest.   But the subsequent school will matter even more.  Better prepared students will do better at the next level. But ...

There is an irony here, because the next school your kid attends is almost certain to place more emphasis on grades  for acceptance and placement than rigor of schooling.  Grades are easier to get at bad schools.  Even if the rigor of training was not high enough to ensure success.

In spite of this, my own view is that you should aim to get your kids the best public schools possible in the area you are in. 

Parents should also be active in the educational process as other posters have mentioned. 

[TrulyStashin]

I have 3 kids (24, 22, and 16).  In addition, I taught social studies for 12 years in 3 public high schools (1 in Fla; 2 in Va.) and most of my teaching experience was in AP classes with kids who were college bound, mostly, and talked about college entrance standards ad naseum.

With my years in teaching and my duties as a mom, I've got a wealth of experience navigating the college admissions game.  I'm currently up to my eyebrows in that process now with my 16 year old who just started his junior year.  I have been told, point blank, by more college admissions officers than I can remember, the following:

1) the quality of high school matters A LOT to them -- typically they "norm" applicant's GPA's and test scores based on the rigor of the high school attended.
2) a high performing student from a poorly performing school is not considered as qualified as a lower ranked student coming from a high performing school because the admissions officers believe that the high performing student has not been subjected to the same level of intellectual rigor, competition, and breadth of study as the lower ranked student coming from a high performing school.

I choose to listen to the people who will determine whether my son can attend their school as a young adult. 

As an 8th grader, my son applied to and was accepted into a school-within-a-school magnet program for leadership at one of the best high schools in our region (in fact, nationally recognized as a top performing school).  His school is 30 miles away (the bus picks him up at our local HS at 6:15 AM, just 1 mile from home, but I often end up driving him to or from for extracurricular activities) and it is worth every bit of sacrifice.  I used to teach at our local HS, which is lower performing and has some serious issues with discipline/ drop outs/ teaching quality.  I expected the gap between our local school and his HS to be significant but it is far greater than I anticipated.  The quality of teaching has been much higher because his HS attracts the best teachers.  Discipline problems are nonexistent, to the point where the students get an hour-long lunch and can eat anywhere in the school (contrast -- at our local school, teacher consensus was "if we did that, we'd have to police the halls for blow jobs.")  The range of curriculum choices is greater.   He has adopted the value system inherent to the school population -- learn; perform; achieve; behave.

Can highly engaged parents and a focused student from an enriched family background do just fine in a poorly performing school?  Of course.  Don't assume, however, that your focused and studious ten-year old will still be that person when s/he is fifteen.  Never underestimate the ability of teenagers to morph into completely different people from the wonderful kids you knew just a few years earlier.  When that happens, all your years of engaged involvement count for much less than who they spend time with and listen to every day. 

If you're considering a lower performing school for your child, I challenge you to go spend three days, all day long, volunteering in various parts of the school -- the cafeteria, the bus loop, the library, on hall duty -- and then ask yourself "would I want to come here every day, all day for XXX years?"  If the answer is no, then don't do that to your kid.  An unhappy, low performing school is a miserable place to be.

[sassy1234]

There are a lot of studies that say that the single most influential thing to kids growing up is not their school, not their parents, but their friends.  I find this to be very interesting. 

I think that it is ideal to be in a great school district, but it is not the end all.  If you are in a bad district, make sure you are involved (really involved like doing extra science projects on the weekend, vocab games at dinner), sign your kid up for tutors and extra activities even if they are the top in their class (most likely, they will be behind compared to other fancy schools), and above all, make sure the kids that they hang out with are a good influence. 

[TrulyStashin]

...... make sure the kids that they hang out with are a good influence.

Also, that they drink unicorn milk from the Holy Grail every morning.

~~~~~

Sorry, but have you ever parented a teenager???  My 22 year-old attended the HS where I taught for 8 years.  If she didn't do her homework, I knew it before the afternoon bell rang.  Still, it was difficult for me to know who all her friends were, let alone "make sure" they were a good influence.  After about age 12, parental influence declines every year and generally drops off a cliff somewhere around age 16.

[avonlea]

I guess our family is a little lucky (or unlucky?) in the high school department.  Our town has only two of them.  They are massive--so not very homey--but they both offer outstanding options for students who leave elementary and middle school well-prepared.  If students come into high school less than ideally prepared, though, they can easily get lost in the crowd. 

[hybrid]

I have 3 kids (24, 22, and 16).  In addition, I taught social studies for 12 years in 3 public high schools (1 in Fla; 2 in Va.) and most of my teaching experience was in AP classes with kids who were college bound, mostly, and talked about college entrance standards ad naseum.

With my years in teaching and my duties as a mom, I've got a wealth of experience navigating the college admissions game.  I'm currently up to my eyebrows in that process now with my 16 year old who just started his junior year.  I have been told, point blank, by more college admissions officers than I can remember, the following:

1) the quality of high school matters A LOT to them -- typically they "norm" applicant's GPA's and test scores based on the rigor of the high school attended.
2) a high performing student from a poorly performing school is not considered as qualified as a lower ranked student coming from a high performing school because the admissions officers believe that the high performing student has not been subjected to the same level of intellectual rigor, competition, and breadth of study as the lower ranked student coming from a high performing school.

I choose to listen to the people who will determine whether my son can attend their school as a young adult. 

As an 8th grader, my son applied to and was accepted into a school-within-a-school magnet program for leadership at one of the best high schools in our region (in fact, nationally recognized as a top performing school).  His school is 30 miles away (the bus picks him up at our local HS at 6:15 AM, just 1 mile from home, but I often end up driving him to or from for extracurricular activities) and it is worth every bit of sacrifice.  I used to teach at our local HS, which is lower performing and has some serious issues with discipline/ drop outs/ teaching quality.  I expected the gap between our local school and his HS to be significant but it is far greater than I anticipated.  The quality of teaching has been much higher because his HS attracts the best teachers.  Discipline problems are nonexistent, to the point where the students get an hour-long lunch and can eat anywhere in the school (contrast -- at our local school, teacher consensus was "if we did that, we'd have to police the halls for blow jobs.")  The range of curriculum choices is greater.   He has adopted the value system inherent to the school population -- learn; perform; achieve; behave.

Can highly engaged parents and a focused student from an enriched family background do just fine in a poorly performing school?  Of course.  Don't assume, however, that your focused and studious ten-year old will still be that person when s/he is fifteen.  Never underestimate the ability of teenagers to morph into completely different people from the wonderful kids you knew just a few years earlier.  When that happens, all your years of engaged involvement count for much less than who they spend time with and listen to every day. 

If you're considering a lower performing school for your child, I challenge you to go spend three days, all day long, volunteering in various parts of the school -- the cafeteria, the bus loop, the library, on hall duty -- and then ask yourself "would I want to come here every day, all day for XXX years?"  If the answer is no, then don't do that to your kid.  An unhappy, low performing school is a miserable place to be.

TrulyStashin and I have career paths that have crossed twice.  She was at my law firm briefly a few years ago, but before that while she was a teacher I was an IT guy for the same 50,000+ student school system.  I visited the 60+ schools in that system multiple times over a career of nearly three years there.  I had a view into our schools that few ever experience.  While I was there I also had to do some data input for the 60+ schools there that involved rankings.  The very best schools by ranking were in the wealthiest areas, and the poorest schools were in the poorest areas.  There were no exceptions to the rule.

For these reasons I don't believe in the notion that teachers can spin gold from straw.  Too many kids come to school unprepared and unwilling to get an education (and most of the time that blame lies squarely at their uninvolved parents feet).  You will find more of those kids in poorer schools than wealthier schools.  That's not to say some kids don't succeed in poorer schools or that some kids don't bomb in wealthier schools, but if your kid is easily influenced by those around him or her, it's fair to bear this in mind.  My youngest son just graduated, barely, from a middle of the road high school.  The last two years were pure hell.  My daughter graduated NHS from the same school seven years earlier and has graduated from college.  In my son's case he is a follower, and he followed the wrong crowd.  At some point your child's peers have much more influence over them than you as a parent will, we experienced that first hand.

To the OP, get your kid in the best school you can.  It's no guarantee of success, but you are improving your odds all the same.  When I was at TrulyStashin's school it was near the bottom of the rankings in no small part because of all the trailer parks that fed into the school.  It was third from the bottom out of perhaps 10 schools in a school system that was considered to be one of the best in Virginia.  And was light years better than the City of Richmond in the next jurisdiction.  There were lots of kids there invested in getting a good education.  And too many that were not remotely interested (a huge problem in Richmond, where the motivated and well-heeled typically move to the suburbs or opt for private schools after elementary school).

[EMP]

There are a lot of studies that say that the single most influential thing to kids growing up is not their school, not their parents, but their friends.  I find this to be very interesting. 

I think that it is ideal to be in a great school district, but it is not the end all.  If you are in a bad district, make sure you are involved (really involved like doing extra science projects on the weekend, vocab games at dinner), sign your kid up for tutors and extra activities even if they are the top in their class (most likely, they will be behind compared to other fancy schools), and above all, make sure the kids that they hang out with are a good influence.

I've wondered about this.  If your kids go to a school where they're picked on for "being too smart" won't most kids just try to fit in by ditching the studying?

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

You just need to make sure the kid is getting a good education.  I'd avoid the very bad schools where most of the teaching time is used up on trying to keep undisciplined kids in line. 

Any other school, as long as the parents are involved, are going to be fine.

Obviously, never pay for any school before university level.  That is a waste of money.  I remember in grade school, my parents thought of enrolling me in Catholic school.  They had an open day where public school kids could attend class.  I went.  They were wayyyyyy behind where I was in public school. I stayed in public school.  Ended up going to a private high school for the first two years.  Struggled because of being away from friends, long commute times, etc.  Transferred to publich high school and learned more than I had in private high school.  And managed to improve my grades to where I got a full ride to a state university. 

When it comes down to it, no one ever cares where someone went to any school, except for college with a small amount of fields - like working on Wall Street. 

[rockstache]

Obviously, never pay for any school before university level.  That is a waste of money. 

Umm...nice generalization, but definitely not always the case. Unless you consider your child's education a waste. Every situation, town, and school is different. Sometimes if you want a good education for your child, you have to pay for it.

[hybrid]

This is a heated debate in our household. 

I'm of the opinion that a kid's academic success is much more dependent on parental involvement  and support than on the test scores of other kids at his school, which is what determines those rankings.

My wife thinks she would be a failure as a parent to send the kids anywhere except the absolute best school in town.

We don't argue over much, but whenever she decides to fight she always wins.  We currently live very close to a poorly-ranked school, and it's only a matter of time until we move. 

Happy wife, happy life.

Sol, I think you are both right in your own ways.  I think you have the most important part of your child's education nailed down.  But even parental involvement doesn't guarantee a kid will fly straight.  Speaking from very recent personal experience I discovered that when my kid fell off the rails, there were so many other involved parents out there with similar stories I was unaware of.  One was the lady who ran the engineering program at his high school, a very gifted educator!  My son was in a middle of the road high school overall, but he was in that engineering department with the cream of the crop.  Hardly mattered.  Both of you are trying to improve the odds for your child.  Both approaches help.  And after that, cross your fingers.

I'm not saying that a move is the right choice for you, but I can definitely see where your wife is coming from.

[lentilman]

  I have been told, point blank, by more college admissions officers than I can remember, the following:

...

2) a high performing student from a poorly performing school is not considered as qualified as a lower ranked student coming from a high performing school because the admissions officers believe that the high performing student has not been subjected to the same level of intellectual rigor, competition, and breadth of study as the lower ranked student coming from a high performing school.

This is contrary to the conclusions discussed in this recent article from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323997004578640241102477584.html

A quote from the article: ""Experts take high performance as evidence of high ability" but don't consider how easy it is to achieve that performance, wrote researchers from University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business, polling firm CivicScience Inc. and Harvard Business School. The research was published last week in the journal PLOS ONE."

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Ahhh, this topic is near and dear to my heart. I went to the "worst" school district in my county from 1st grade through 12th. Whatever that means. It was in a very rural area, and I was a minority in the school. My peers were mostly poor. I graduated valedictorian of a class of about 45.

My tiny school didn't have the resources to offer "Advanced Placement" courses that offer high school students college credit. Instead, starting in the 11th grade, I began taking half my classes at a local university about 15 miles away. My senior year, I only took a single class at my high school, and the rest I took at the university. Ironically, I found most of my college classes to be so ridiculously easy that I got into a bad habit of non-attendance (What? You mean they don't care whether or not I attend class in college? Score!)

In no way was I underprepared for or overwhelmed by my transition to college. Was my little poor-performing high school secretly better than the numbers stated? Maybe, but I think it has more to do with the fact that, unlike many of my peers, I actually had parents who gave a damn about my education. Their attitude led me to give a damn about my own education. There were some fringe benefits of a small school. Small classes, for one thing. I never lacked for personal attention, and my better teachers would actually challenge me with extra work, which I resented at the time, but now I know what they were doing. Drugs were never really an issue, unlike at the larger schools in the county (alcohol, on the other hand...)

In summary, I have absolutely zero desire to ever feel the need to chase the "best schools" for my children. I am fortunate in that my wife feels pretty much the same way (She didn't attend a superstar high school either, yet she is an intelligent, well-adjusted, and successful adult. Also has parents who give a crap. Pattern, anyone?) I feel that instilling our values in our children from a young age is quite sufficient.

[EMP]

Drugs were never really an issue, unlike at the larger schools in the county (alcohol, on the other hand...)

Meth is and was quite popular in my rural school.

[Argyle]

I went to a terrible inner-city school.  I mean students doing drugs in the classroom, crime, violence, students with horrifying home lives, classes stuffed full of unruly illiterate kids, taught mostly by semi-literate teachers, with a few floundering, discouraged good teachers trying to swim against the tide.  I rose to the top by virtue of being able to spell and punctuate.  I got into a top college, got graduate degrees, etc., and so I certainly rose above the circumstances.  It's possible for determined students to do it.  But I wouldn't wish my school experience on any kid.  It was miserable.  But my parents didn't want to send me to a private school because "A good student can learn anywhere."  When I got to college and was in classes with kids who had really had someone to help them learn in high school -- and learn how to learn -- it was a shock, and it took a lot of adjustment.  I really resent the fear, misery and waste of time of sitting in that school every weekday except summer for four years.  Maybe mediocre schools are survivable.  But truly bad schools are terrible for kids.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Drugs were never really an issue, unlike at the larger schools in the county (alcohol, on the other hand...)

Meth is and was quite popular in my rural school.

That's unfortunate. It seems to be rampant in some areas, but absent in others. I have lived in a rural county where meth was a problem. That was a place I lived for a few years after college. It seemed to be more of an issue among directionless 20-somethings than high-schoolers, but I could be wrong. I didn't really hang out with the high-schoolers at that point.

In my high school, the only drug I was ever aware of anyone using was marijuana. I never did partake. I was pretty shocked when I learned that some of my acquaintances from the larger schools in the county used cocaine.

[Emily2651]

I went to a shitty public school. My very educated parents stepped up ... part time home school, great home environment, involved parents.

You know what? It SUCKED.

Because school SUCKED. And I was there 8 hours a day. It was BORING. It was depressing. Insulting. Ridiculous.

I can't understand why parents try to justify sending their kids to shitty schools. Look, if you have no choice, fine, you have no choice. But if you have a choice ... what are you thinking??

[avonlea]

I visited the 60+ schools in that system multiple times over a career of nearly three years there.  I had a view into our schools that few ever experience.  While I was there I also had to do some data input for the 60+ schools there that involved rankings.  The very best schools by ranking were in the wealthiest areas, and the poorest schools were in the poorest areas.  There were no exceptions to the rule.

I think this is probably true for most places in our nation. Even though my daughter's school has a poverty rate of 40%, many of the parents in that group are graduate students, so it probably wasn't fair of me to pull up that statistic.  Those families most likely value education more highly than others in poor areas. 

ETA:  Her school still doesn't have a high ranking (most likely based on reasons I discussed previously), but it performs better on tests than most schools in that economic group.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I went to a shitty public school. My very educated parents stepped up ... part time home school, great home environment, involved parents.

You know what? It SUCKED.

Because school SUCKED. And I was there 8 hours a day. It was BORING. It was depressing. Insulting. Ridiculous.

I can't understand why parents try to justify sending their kids to shitty schools. Look, if you have no choice, fine, you have no choice. But if you have a choice ... what are you thinking??

That's funny, I always assumed that school sucked and was boring becaus I was a normal teenager. I never considered that it might be because my school was shitty. Actually, I'm still pretty sure it was because I was a normal teenager. School would have sucked and been boring even if my parents had spent every dime of their retirement savings to send me to a nice private school.

[Emily2651]

That's funny, I always assumed that school sucked and was boring because I was a normal teenager.

Hogwash. It was boring, too easy. Possible to skate though and get straight As without doing any work. Kids know the difference between "my school is a joke" and "I'm a normal teenager".

Then I went to college (a good one, since I'm a good test taker) and my suspicions were confirmed: the other kids had been learning so much more in high than I had. I had a lot of catching up to do. Which was fine, I caught up, whatever. But it would have been better to have gone to a not-shitty school, that's all I'm saying.

My husband is a more extreme story. He's very smart. He was sent to the back of the room to work "independently" for, oh, pretty much all of elementary school. He was bored every day until college. And you can say, oh, that's fine. He's fine. Which he is. But I want better for my son than 13 years of abject boredom.

[TrulyStashin]

  I have been told, point blank, by more college admissions officers than I can remember, the following:

...

2) a high performing student from a poorly performing school is not considered as qualified as a lower ranked student coming from a high performing school because the admissions officers believe that the high performing student has not been subjected to the same level of intellectual rigor, competition, and breadth of study as the lower ranked student coming from a high performing school.

This is contrary to the conclusions discussed in this recent article from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323997004578640241102477584.html

A quote from the article: ""Experts take high performance as evidence of high ability" but don't consider how easy it is to achieve that performance, wrote researchers from University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business, polling firm CivicScience Inc. and Harvard Business School. The research was published last week in the journal PLOS ONE."

The article concerns admission to GRADUATE school, not undergraduate.  That's a completely different ball game, so to speak.  Students applying to grad school are older (>22 usually) and more mature and the mere fact that they graduated with a BA/ BS indicates the ability to work toward and complete a goal.

The high school to college game is different because admissions officers are evaluating 17 and 18 year old kids who are, by definition, immature and unproven.  Whatever the article might say, I'm telling you what I've been told over and over again, by the gate keepers.

You can choose to ignore it if you want.  I choose to listen.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

That's funny, I always assumed that school sucked and was boring because I was a normal teenager.

Hogwash. It was boring, too easy. Possible to skate though and get straight As without doing any work. Kids know the difference between "my school is a joke" and "I'm a normal teenager".

Maybe we have differences of opinion because my crappy school was better than your crappy school. Who knows? I do know that I had easy classes in high school that I loved, due to the subject matter, as well as difficult classes that I despised, due to the subject matter. Not to mention easy classes that I despised, due to the subject matter, and difficult classes that I loved, due to the subject matter. In other words, what I was learning about had a great deal more to do with my level of interest than the difficulty of the course.

I went to a very good college, but I was still deathly bored until I got into my core curriculum, not because the courses weren't challenging, but because I never gave a rat's ass about Greek history, or Music Appreciation, or Calculus. On the other hand, I found the courses in my core curriculum LESS challenging, specifically because they were MORE interesting.

In any case, I think your kids are going to be just fine, specifically you care so much about their education, and much less so because of where you choose to send them. I think my kids will be okay too.