Pick a school...higher acheiving or lower?

[MandaJo]

@Dinsdale

Your experience is w/ US schools, right?

Do you have any experience in situations similar to what the OP describes - a small town (15k pop), with 4 public primary schools and (apparently) open enrollment?

In the Chicago area, what you describe might apply to - say - the New Triers, or Chicago magnet schools. I have lived in suburbs where some primary schools had better reps than others, but not the “toxic” dynamic you describe.

But never having lived in a community of 15k, I’m having a hard time imagining how the schools could differ as much as the OP describes.

I know American schools, yes. The worst high schools I know are the "good’ suburban high schools. They tend to rest on their laurels, allow the most involved parents to horde all the opportunities, and are generally hyper-focused on maintaining “traditions” and the status quo–not growing. They run schools-within-a-school for the high achieving kids with power parents and they don’t much care about wheels that aren’t squeaky. They are really into maintaining their public facade. The teaching is pedestrian.

This isn’t all suburban high schools, of course, but it’s amazing how often it applies to the 'flagship" high school of a particular school district.

[Aspidistra]

I’m thinking that in Kam’s daughter’s situation, it’s very likely that the high-paid blow-ins are mostly blue collar workers and tradies, who’ve lucked into a “boom town” situation where their particular skills are in high demand. Probably with a few nurses and teachers thrown in - who get paid high salaries or other ‘sweeteners’ to encourage them to go to remote areas that, generally, nobody wants to go to. I kind of doubt if there would be enough people who identify themselves as ‘middle class’ to really make an actual ‘middle class neighborhood’

On that basis, I’m also going to guess that the ‘good’ school probably doesn’t have teachers that are *that *much better than the ‘bad’ schools because they all have the same recruitment problem - nobody wants to move to remote towns unless you pay them megabucks. Australian schools are funded state-wide, not locally, so the ‘good’ school should have pretty much the same budget as the ‘bad’ ones (though they can probably charge more in the way of ‘extras’ and ‘voluntary contributions’.

I’m also going to guess that the difference in test scores is probably due to a) some proportion of the kids coming from badly-functioning, long-term-unemployed families who’ve kind of given up (which has nothing to do with ethnic mix … you get the same folks in lily-white tiny regional towns too, if there’s no Big Employer or if there was one and they folded), and possibly b) if there is a strong Aboriginal community, some proportion of the kids may be ESL kids, which is obviously going to have an effect on their literacy scores.

Do you ever go on the Essential Baby forums, kam? That would be a good place to get answers to questions like this - it’s been a while since I hung out there, but “what are things like in Town XYZ” was a sort of question that popped up there all the time

[Busy_Scissors]

@senoy

It’s actually a sticky wicket. The crux of the situation is that your kids can help kids whose parents don’t care simply by being there, but it disadvantages your kid.

Here’s something that happens in our elementary school. Same school, same district, but the wealthy White and Asian parents that are involved request teachers while the poorer minority students do not. The principal honors all of the requests, but what happens is that the ‘best’ teachers end up with classes full of wealthy, White and Asian kids and the other teachers end up with classes with poorer students that skew minority. We just got our son’s yearbook and you’ll see classes that are all universally blonde or Asian well-dressed kids in a class and then another class with all black and Hispanic students who are shabbily dressed. The kids in the rich classes move through as a cohort. They always have the same kids in their class and the same friends. They end up on the same sports teams and essentially form a wealthy, white and Asian enclave that is largely separate from the rest of the school. When there are parties, their parents bring in tons of food and entertainment, while the poorer kids have zero parental involvement.

So as relatively wealthy, white parents, we find ourselves in a bad situation. We know what happens and we can certainly request to be put in the ‘rich’ class, but then we just perpetuate the cycle. We have chosen to not request, but then we actively see that our kids are not getting the same advantages as the wealthy kids and that their friends tend to be worse influences. At the same time, if we’re not there, the classrooms get nothing. It was so bad that last year, there was a party in one of the ‘poor’ classrooms that consisted entirely of giving book reports because there were no parents willing to bring in food or decorations. In the ‘wealthy’ classroom, there were 10 people who wanted to be homeroom mom. In the two poor classrooms, they didn’t have anyone. The ‘wealthy’ classroom had so much food in one of the grades, that the parent coordinator took some of their leftovers to the ‘poor’ classroom so that they would have something. My wife just went on the class field trip on Monday to the zoo and in the ‘wealthy’ classroom, every kid had a parent with them and sometimes both parents. In the ‘poor’ classroom that our son is in, my wife had to chaperone a large group of kids because none of their parents could come. There was a STEM night last week and nearly every single ‘wealthy’ family came to participate in the activities and out-of-school learning and in my son’s class, it was him and one other kid. The worry that you have is that if we decided to do what every other ‘wealthy’ parent does, then there is no one in the ‘poor’ classrooms. We were the only family that donated school supplies. We were one of two that brought food for parties. We were the only one with a parent volunteer. We were one of three that showed up for performances.

We are able to leverage our privilege to help those kids with zero privilege, but we know that it ends up hurting our own kids, so it’s really a very tough decision and a tough situation.

Don’t quite relate to what requesting teachers means, that is not routinely done over here, but I understand the situation you describe. If, and it’s an important if, your kids are bright and academically able then you’re not actually hurting your kids here IMHO / IME - you’re helping them and strengthening their education. Kudos to you.

I went through similar when I was a kid at my school, albeit less polarised then the picture you paint, and I can swear down that it gave me an edge in later life.

[araminty]

I agree with much of Aspidistra’s analysis. A lot of the commentary here is coloured by the US school districting weirdness which doesn’t apply in Australia.

Especially if they’re only going to be in town a few years, I say it doesn’t really matter that much. Well-supported and smart kids like I assume kam’s grandies are, can flourish anywhere. So why not send 'em to the lower-performing school, have the parents get involved by volunteering, make social connections with the other parents, build community?

I went to a school in a similar town for grade 2-4, but we only had one school. My friends were white, Aboriginal, Asian, whoever. I did well, had great teachers, and am still friends with some classmates. My mum organised English conversation practice for other parents, and discovered a new passion, leading her to get her teaching credential.

[kambuckta]

@msmith537

I feel like there is a degree of hypocrisy in what you presented for your particular “situation”. I don’t hear you fretting over whether your daughter should even take this job in the first place. So you are willing to enjoy the main benefits of moving to a lucrative job in a remote, depressed region while wringing your hands over which gated community to send your kids to school from to assuage some sort of “liberal guilt”?

Of course she should take the job. She’s a single mother who has been given a marvelous opportunity to take on a leading role (Work, Health and Safety) in an overwhelmingly male-dominated industrial sector. She’s worked hard to get here, the company trusts her to be up to the task and it would give her the career boost she needs. After being unemployed for such a long time, this job and now the prospective move has been a godsend.

[kambuckta]

@Aspidistra

Do you ever go on the Essential Baby forums, kam? That would be a good place to get answers to questions like this - it’s been a while since I hung out there, but “what are things like in Town XYZ” was a sort of question that popped up there all the time

Hah, never heard of them. My ‘babies’ all came well before the internet and forums, but I’ll take a squiz. Thanks.

@araminty

I went to a school in a similar town for grade 2-4, but we only had one school. My friends were white, Aboriginal, Asian, whoever. I did well, had great teachers, and am still friends with some classmates. My mum organised English conversation practice for other parents, and discovered a new passion, leading her to get her teaching credential.

Thanks for some positive stuff. I’ve been somewhat stressing (whole lot of weird stuff has happened in the last week, a move to Woop Woop of course being weirdest of the lot). I shall remain optimistic!!

[Anny_Middon]

I’m not a parent, so my questions here might be really ignorant. Having said that, why don’t all the parents in the area send their children to the better school? Which is another way of asking: What’s the disadvantage of living in the cheaper area and sending your kids to the better school in the richer neighborhood? How will the children get to that school? Will a parent have to drive them? How long will the commute be? An hour a day in commuting can be a high price to pay – there are far better ways for anyone to spend time.

How does “mediocre school plus greater parental enrichment efforts” compare to just the better school? If a parent has to spend, say, forty minutes a day driving the child to the better school, what does forty minutes instead in home-schooling-type activities add to the overall education of the child?

You say that in a relative short period of time, the high-paying job will enable the parents to move to an urban area. Since the children are now in elementary school, they will likely be attending high school in a different area. ISTM that what’s really important is post-secondary education, but the choices there may depend on what high school the child attends. Will the elementary school the child attends make it hard for the child to do well at a good high school? My own memory of how it worked a bazillion years ago is that a child who skated through at a good school was actually less well equipped in high school than one who went to a lesser school, but whose home life included a lot of educational activites.

[Aspidistra]

Funnily enough, my SIL and her family are also moving to Way Away WA for a year real soon now - going to work in Indigenous health up in the far north west. Starting next week. They homeschool though, so - which school system, not so much of an issue!

I’m sure your daughter will have a great experience, and learn lots. Hard to visit, though!

[kambuckta]

@Aspidistra

I’m sure your daughter will have a great experience, and learn lots. Hard to visit, though!

I’m part of the package going over.

Must say, when she first mentioned it I was dumbfounded. Then I jumped on the net and read all these horror stories about the town etc, so I told her NO WAY, she shouldn’t go. Then after her protestations, I said, ‘Ok, you can go, I’m staying HERE’.

Then after a few days reflection and considering what an amazing career move this is (she only got her quals in WHS 18m ago) realized she’d be an idiot to knock it back. The kids are young enough to adapt, I’m up for a new adventure, and shit, you only live once, right?

[msmith537]

@kambuckta

Of course she should take the job. She’s a single mother who has been given a marvelous opportunity to take on a leading role (Work, Health and Safety) in an overwhelmingly male-dominated industrial sector. She’s worked hard to get here, the company trusts her to be up to the task and it would give her the career boost she needs. After being unemployed for such a long time, this job and now the prospective move has been a godsend.

I don’t doubt it. But you said you “want the best for kids who are disadvantaged by the system”. I’m saying that the fact that you have this wealthy corporation with a major facility with high paying jobs in a small depressed remote community is arguably part of that “system”. Kind of like taking a job with ExxonMobil but then buying on Prius because it’s good for the environment.

Now I can see not wanting to live in some gated corporate enclave or wanting a community with cheaper rent. I just wouldn’t choose based on what you think you are “supposed to” do because believe it’s better for the kids. In reality it probably doesn’t really matter all that much.

@senoy

We are able to leverage our privilege to help those kids with zero privilege, but we know that it ends up hurting our own kids, so it’s really a very tough decision and a tough situation.

Yes, you have robbed your children of the sense of privilege and entitlement that comes from living in an enclave with people just like them! This may harm them later on in their careers in corporate America when they may allow human feelings to influence their decision-making.

[Bone]

There’s this expression - you don’t sacrifice your children on the altar of your principles. Well, that may not be a real expression, but it feels right to me. My kids will get the very best I can provide, everything else be damned. Best is subjective of course - being spoiled isn’t good for them of course. But a higher quality education is absolutely better, and if A is better than B, they are getting A.

[BigT]

@bump

Here’s the thing- parents’ first obligation is to their own children.

That is what I can’t agree with. There is an obligation to your own children, but it’s not above and beyond everyone else. It as most equal, same as my responsibility to myself vs. others. Yeah, that’s still lopsided, since there are fewer people in “me and my own,” but it gets the basic human moral concept that you’re supposed to care about other people.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t really give me an answer to the OP’s question. What I think would matter is just how smart my kid is, and how well they can do what I did, learning a lot on my own. Part of me really wants my kid to go to a school like a Montessori early on to learn to learn on their own, so that, once they get out, they don’t depend on any school’s curriculum. But I could also maybe handle this at home myself, especially with the Internet at my (and my kids’) fingertips.

I don’t have kids, so I can’t know the emotional investment part, nor do I have the experience necessary to make my choice. I just vehemently disagree with the idea that I have a greater responsibility to myself and my own children than everyone else. I honestly think that concept is behind most if not all the immorality in the world. It is the most basic form of tribalism. There’s a reason why nepotism is seen as horribly immoral.

I mean, nearly every moral system puts how your actions may harm others at the forefront. Selfishness is treated as a bad thing. You need a reason, a justification to be selfish. (The only systems that don’t are generally reviled by the public as immoral.)

I just think that, when it comes to our children, we think of them simultaneously as others and as parts of ourselves, and are not consistent with our morals in that regard. It allows us to continue to act like we should help others before ourselves, while actually putting the person closest to ourselves first.

I sure as hell do not believe that someone should not put your kids before your principles. I would argue that, when you do, you’re saying you don’t actually believe those principles. Our society definitely treats it that way: you don’t get off for crimes just because you did it for your kids.

I would actually be afraid to be around people who would sacrifice all of their principles for their kids. That would mean they murder for their kid. More practically, nobody means “all principles,” so it would depend on what principle they were willing to let slide.

But I 100% believe that, if you would do it for your kid, then you do not believe it is actually wrong. And so I will treat you appropriately.

Sorry if that rambled a bit: I addressed the OP and then read some other replies, so I kinda went off on all the tangents I saw.