Schools--the saga continues

[axordil]

So, at the risk of being uncharacteristically personal, I thought I would externalize an internal debate I've been having.

Some of you may know how I feel about public school. In a nutshell, I love the concept and think it's essential to our society, but I think the current implementation has some serious shortfalls, which the federal government has only exacerbated with NCLB. To wit: what was already in many locations an assembly line production designed to produce young adults fully capable of serving in the military or operating a cash register became more so.

Yes, there are exceptions. And there are teachers who can make a huge difference. And there are kids who, in spite of it all, come out not only smart but thoughtful, not only civil but civic-minded. Yet I can't forget my years in public school. Out of the 12 years I remember, only two stand out as being positive (the last two) through and through, whereas two were outright damaging to me. The rest were mixed bags, somewhere in between the extremes.

That doesn't strike me as a good average. And I don't think things have changed for the better since my childhood. The problem was that I didn't fit into the nicely defined categories--I was smart, way smart, but I wasn't well-behaved (bored kids generally aren't--certainly not bored boys). I was not nearly as advanced emotionally as I was intellectually. And I was fat. Not a good combination.

My son is three. He's not going to be fat, not if I can do anything about it, but I suspect he will be smart. And if he's bored, he's not going to be quiet about it. That concerns me.

On top of that, we live in an area whose school system is only provisionally accredited, and where the stories of parents we have heard run the gamut from encouraging to scary. It would be better in a way if they were at least consistently bad...but even if we moved to a "better" area school-wise, the fact that everyone, everywhere, has to teach to tests from K through 12 now is not encouraging. Sure, the A/C may always work while they fill out the bubbles with the #2 pencils, and there may be more "enrichment" programs available, but the core curriculum is what it is.

So, we're looking at private schools. And apart from the obstacle of the cost (I was gratified when one admissions director was honest enough to use the word "Monumental") I can't quite get past a sense of...guilt? Hypocrisy? Elitism? Reverse snobbery? If we go down this track, we're looking eventually at sending my son off to the sort of secondary school I once cracked jokes about having valet parking and rest room attendants. Not to mention the fact that I really don't know how that is going to play with some of my family and friends, who are not of a demographic where anything other than public or perhaps parochial school was an option.

But I can't let him go through the colossal waste of time, the pernicious waste of time, that I did. I just can't.

In a way I know that it's a dilemma a lot of people would love to have. But having it, it remains a dilemma.

[yovargas]

So you have the option of sending him to a better school or a worse school? Umm...what's the debate again?

[axordil]

Well, at this point, there isn't much debate about the actual action we're taking, I suppose. There is however a significant amount of internal background noise pursuant to that action, which I thought I would share.

[Maria]

Move to Columbia. The gifted program here is good, plus many of the schools have won awards.

Seriously, though, if you think your kid is going to be above average intelligence, it really, really pays to put them where there is a good gifted program. My oldest daughter was reading at three, so when we bought the property to build our house on, our #1 criteria was to remain in the Columbia School District so she could be in the Gifted program. It turned out that all three kids needed that- so it was triply good that we stayed in the district. We could have got more land, cheaper, further out from town- but we needed THIS school district.

Just putting him in a "good" school won't make that much difference unless said "good"ness includes a decent gifted program. Not all schools can devote a significant chunk of their resources for only 3% of their population. Our school district does it by creating a center, and bringing in the gifted elementary kids once a week, where they learn completely different and challenging material from what they are "learning" in their regular classes. It kept my kids from being completely bored out of their minds in elementary school.

[Primula Baggins]

We have good schools, but the programs for gifted kids have been completely gutted because of low funding and a strong undercurrent in our community that they are "elitist" because they "discriminate" against kids who are not labeled gifted and hurt their self-esteem.

Fortunately, there are magnet programs here that are challenging in an of themselves, which is why we have stayed here for our kids' whole school careers. We chose language immersion, which culminates in a really challenging "International High School" program, and it's been good.

Local private schools are limited—there is a fine Catholic high school, and a private school that tends to concentrate kids from monetyed families who have gotten in trouble in public school, and that's it.

My point is that not all public school systems have gone down the tubes, though all are certainly struggling under the burden of NCLB and similar state programs, plus the general unwillingness to actually pay for public services.

[axordil]

Maria--

The Columbia school district, if memory serves, has some associations with the University of Missouri that stand it in good stead. And I suspect other districts in many other college towns have some advantages in that regard, too.

But moving out of the St. Louis area isn't an option right now.

Factoid--The St. Louis area has more independent private schools than any other metropolitan area in the country, per capita. I wonder what that says...

Maria and Prim--

The local district does have a G & T program, which is currently under legal attack because it is 80% white in a district that is 80% black. I rather doubt it will still be around in two years, as a result: in my experience most districts would rather drop problematic programs than fight for them or work on them, especially when money is already scarce.

Magnet schools are available in the St. Louis City school district, and I know kids who do very well in them, but that would mean an hour or longer bus ride at the beginning and the end of every day...not to mention the fact that the district is about to be taken over by the state, and God knows what that will mean for the program. I would really hate to get him in and have it fold halfway through.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ax, I understand your dilemna (though it is easier for me, not being a parent and all). While it is true, as Prim and Maria, point out, that not all public schools are awful, there is no question that there is a big problem across much of the U.S. And as you point out, this is not a new problem. I went to school some place that was supposed to have a good program, but it was horrible. And one of the problems was that they wouldn't let me into the gifted program, because I came from some place else that supposedly didn't have as good of a program. When I moved to Great Neck the guidance counselor refused to allow me into the honors math class in 9th grade, despite the fact that I had very high math scores in West Islip where I lived before, because they were afraid I wouldn't keep up. So of course I was bored in the regular class and did mediocrely. So of course, the next two years they continued to keep me out. Finally, my senior year, I decided to take the AP Calculus class, over the objections of the guidance counselor, and despite the fact that I was the only one in the class that had not been in the honors program before that. And of course I got the highest marks in the class (now I can barely add 2 + 2 and get 4, but that is another story ).

[axordil]

Guidance counselors...oh, don't get me started.

To be fair, I had one good one, in eighth grade, the lowest pit of hell, who actually helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel. The others...well, the one that pointed out that tests indicated I would be happiest as a female computer programmer sticks in my head.

[Primula Baggins]

Eighth grade was hell for me, too. None of my kids have experienced that, I'm happy to say; it is now okay to be smart, even if you're not also athletic or classically beautiful (in which case, when I was a kid, being smart was forgiven . . . as long as you hid every sign of it in social situations and were as cruel as possible to the unpopular).

[Frelga]

Ax, we went through exactly the same agonizing, with the added financial twist that the schools in the district where we live are not very good at all. So it was move or go to a private school, and moving was more expensive. While I appreciate the importance of public schools, to put it bluntly, when it comes to my child's well-being, I have no principles.

Like yours, my son is an early reader. It's not just that he is bright, it's that he has a very strong logical, reasoning cast to his personality. I felt adamant that he needs to be in the environment where he can be challenged not just by the teachers but also by his peers, and just as importantly, where he would not be pigeonholed based on his academic qualities and where he can interact with a diverse student population. I believe very strongly that social skills is the most important thing a school teaches children, sometimes unintentionally and often in a very brutal way.

We reviewed several private schools, of which we have an excellent variety here. Some are very strongly focused on academics, other position themselves as more artistic, more nurturing, more politically correct; they come in various settings and class sizes.

I chose a school which, as I say, looks like a school. It has strong academics, but also an excellent humanities and arts program. Social responsibilty is high on the list of values, with an emphasis on protecting environment and contributing to the community. As an example, 3rd graders learn sign language and then use this skill to "buddy-up" with the kindergarten class at the school for children with hearing loss.

I am very pleased with his progress. His math and reading skills are still top of the class, and the teachers encourage him with more challenging assignments. He doesn't get a chance to get too stuck up, however, because other kids get to shine in art and music, were he is about average, and everyone is on the same level with humanities. Even more importantly to me, he's done great socially.

I've been talking to parents of his preschool friends who sent their children to public schools. They are all satisfied with their choice. Still, there are things I'm glad I don't have to deal with. It seems like studying for tests is very important even in kindergarten (which encourages memorizing the "right" answer instead of flexible and creative thinking). Art and PE were cut drastically. Parents of one girl told me her teacher expressed concern that she didn't stay inside the lines when she did her coloring, and that was a school that rated very highly on the State level!

In the large scheme of things, how much damage much choice has done to the local public education system? I don't know. It wouldn't be true to say that I don't care, but I don't feel any guilt. The problems that the public schools face are very large, systemic and stem from profound social, political and historical issues. I will not spend 12 years of my son's and my own life to beat my head against the wall if I can help it.

[Lurker]

I'm biased with regards to this issue because I studied at a private Catholic School (independent school they call here) with an IB programme. Academics and extra-cullicular aside, I gained a lot from going to that school. It opened a lot of doors for me as an adult, when my classmates in university were scrambling for job openings, I got interviewed at a few companies because of the so called "old boy's club" of my HS.

[nerdanel]

Ax, this topic generated such strong feelings in me, to the point where I was unconsciously clenching my fists and gritting my teeth (:shock:). I'll just say - you should send your son to the school that will give him the best education he can receive, and by "best," I mostly mean "mentally stimulating" but also "well-rounded." You should feel no guilt as a parent about that choice. You are very literally doing what you can to save your child from years of misery.

I'll just add one snarky comment because my fingers are itching - I find the argument that bright (commonly termed "gifted") students should stagnate mentally (and sometimes emotionally) in classes for "average" children, in order to benefit the "average" kids and raise the academic level of the "average" classes to be LUDICROUS.

Actually, make that two snarky comments: In light of all the rhetoric about children being our hope for the future, I find it equally ludicrous that funding to gifted programs is being cut across the nation in order to maintain funding and opportunities for other groups of children at their present level. As Rob Corddry would say, "Come. On.!" Statistically speaking, which children, exactly, do we think are likely to be our hope for the future? (and by this I mean: which children are going to be making important medical/scientific discoveries or policy decisions; which children are going to be creating the next great art, music, and film; and so on)

See what I mean? I just...can't talk about this topic with any semblance of rationality.

[halplm]

I'm with nel.

*waves to nel*

of course, as I'm sure you know, Ax... a parent's involvement is just as crucial as whatever school someone goes to.

[Primula Baggins]

Aw, come on, Nel—don't you realize how elitist it is to think that important scientific, medical, artistic and social breakthroughs are made by smart people? Anyone could do it, anyone at all, if they had sufficient self-esteem.

(Don't you admire how being twenty years farther out of the meat grinder has increased my capacity for rational discourse on the subject?)

(Yeah, me, too.)

[yovargas]

IAWN.


Oh, and btw, CAN WE INCREASE THE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS ALREADY!!?????????

[axordil]

hal--

Absolutely. A good school won't save a kid from bad parents...but a bad school can make good parents' jobs a lot harder.

One of the things I like about the two private schools I'm looking at is that they both have an expectation of parental involvement, and not just selling wrapping paper (well, OK, that sort of thing too...in this respect, schools are schools ). They view education as a partnership between school and family in this regard.

nel--

I was hoping you would wander through the discussion, and I hope your nails didn't bite too deeply in your palms. And it really is about trying to do the best I can for him. If he goes on to bigger and better things down the line, that's great...but I want to spare him the years of boredom and unhappiness I had. What he does with his life is up to him, but I want him to have the broadest possible range of choices, and the strength of his convictions in whatever he does. It took me way too long to develop the latter, and part of that really does go back to the schools.

prim--

You know, if they actually could make kids have self-esteem, they would have an argument. But too many kids come out with neither real self-esteem nor critical thinking skills, only with an expectation that they deserve things because they're who they are. That's not a sense of self-esteem, that's a sense of entitlement.

[Primula Baggins]

And what's worse, the kids know the "self-esteem" that's being drilled into them is fake. Yes, all kids should value themselves and care for their safety and their future, but they should not be taught that achievement is meaningless, or be led to believe that everyone has the same talents and abilities.

A shaky, externally imposed "self-esteem" leads to more problems than an honest understanding of one's own value and importance (an understanding that lets a kid find his strengths so he can develop them).

[halplm]

The thing is, we're talking about a kid "finding their strengths" or "building their self esteem" ... this is what raising a kid is about I would think... it has nothing to do with education.

Is the real problem with our public education that we (as a society that is) expect our children to be "raised" by the school system?

Just a thought, sorry as it's a bit off topic...

[baby tuckoo]

I like the word "confidence" to describe the thing we want our kids to develop. "Self-esteem" reeks of entitlement, to me. It might be for valid reasons, it might not. To esteem the self highly is the first step on the path toward self-absorbtion.

That being said . . .

I am a public high school teacher. You all have spoken of "good" schools and "bad" schools. Like most of everything, most public schools are ok: no better, no worse. I've taught at four of them, in different communities of Northern Calif. I was incompetent at first, and I will never master the art of pedagogy, but my students now receive their due: instruction in the given subject. My incompetence was logistical, mostly, and I don't think anyone suffered for it in their academic careers.

My advice to young parents: send your child to the local public school unless it is a dangerous place for reasons outside the classroom. And maybe even then.

[vison]

I like the word "confidence" to describe the thing we want our kids to develop. "Self-esteem" reeks of entitlement, to me. It might be for valid reasons, it might not. To esteem the self highly is the first step on the path toward self-absorbtion.

That being said . . .

I am a public high school teacher. You all have spoken of "good" schools and "bad" schools. Like most of everything, most public schools are ok: no better, no worse. I've taught at four of them, in different communities of Northern Calif. I was incompetent at first, and I will never master the art of pedagogy, but my students now receive their due: instruction in the given subject. My incompetence was logistical, mostly, and I don't think anyone suffered for it in their academic careers.

My advice to young parents: send your child to the local public school unless it is a dangerous place for reasons outside the classroom. And maybe even then.

Good post, bt.

Well, we are probably sending Tay to the private school I mentioned in an earlier thread. But this has nothing to do with the "goodness" of the school, and everything to do with the fact that he wants to go there. That, in and of itself, isn't reason enough, but added to the difficulties going on in the three local public middle schools, it's enough. The academic credentials of this particular private school are pretty good, as good as the public schools but not better. They have an excellent PE program.

However, the boys have attended 3 public elementary schools. All were excellent. Excellent teachers, with one exception in Tay's case. Small schools, which makes a difference. Oz will stay at the neighbourhood public school until middle school and then, if he wants to go to the private school, we'll manage. It's expensive. And who knows? Tay might hate it and the whole thing go sideways.

We, thankfully, do not have the problems with our system that Americans seem to have. Mostly because we are a smaller population, and we don't have the social problems relating to the inner cities and poverty, at least not on the same sort of scale. We DO have such problems, but not on the American level.

ax, I wouldn't wallow in guilt. You have to do what you think is best for your own kid. Maybe private tutoring outside school hours would be easier on the pocketbook than a private school?