I can never understand what exactly is a higher testing Public School for Kindergartners and even for elementary school students. Can anyone explain me please ? When we were children, we never had Preschool, LKG and UKG. We were directly admitted in the first grade. I don't even remember my elementary school. My actual schooling started from 7th grade in a Public School, which had very good teachers. My son went to a good and affordable convent school from 8th grade onwards. My daughter graduated from an ordinary High School. We all have done well in academics.
1
What educational values do you want your children to have? What daily experiences do you want your child to have?
Fact is, if you want your child to have any sort of enrichment, an underperforming public school is not where you go. A poor public school will spend most of its time drilling kids with the basics of math and reading to try to drag up its scores. Music? Art? Advanced science? Those are all cut in favor of more hours of Common Core practice.
The neediest of students will be those requiring the most attention from teachers. If your child is competent, he will be completely ignored...or used as a tutor for worse kids. After all, studies show low performing kids actually do better when higher performing kids are in the same classroom. Problem is, those high performing kids get nothing. Extra enrichment, science projects, and other pursuits are simply not going to be there.
And "culture", which let's face it, is another term for "diversity". Let's not pretend there are no cultural differences among "diverse" races. Remember that "sounding white" means sounding educated...and that's bad to many black families. As an interracial child, your kid will be even more ostracized by his black peers for having the audacity to study hard and achieve.
Fact is, if you want your child to have any sort of enrichment, an underperforming public school is not where you go. A poor public school will spend most of its time drilling kids with the basics of math and reading to try to drag up its scores. Music? Art? Advanced science? Those are all cut in favor of more hours of Common Core practice.
The neediest of students will be those requiring the most attention from teachers. If your child is competent, he will be completely ignored...or used as a tutor for worse kids. After all, studies show low performing kids actually do better when higher performing kids are in the same classroom. Problem is, those high performing kids get nothing. Extra enrichment, science projects, and other pursuits are simply not going to be there.
And "culture", which let's face it, is another term for "diversity". Let's not pretend there are no cultural differences among "diverse" races. Remember that "sounding white" means sounding educated...and that's bad to many black families. As an interracial child, your kid will be even more ostracized by his black peers for having the audacity to study hard and achieve.
9
LW1: "I have to believe there is something wrong with how the school is educating these kids" It's the school's fault? These children are among the poorest in the city. Could that contribute to low test scores? The students may not have received preparation for school or have parents who do not know how to, or cannot, reinforce the school's efforts. They may be young, underemployed, in low wage jobs or have been inadequately prepared for school themselves. The students deserve extra services but teachers and administrators do not bear all responsibility for low scores.
But a diverse environment is good for children. I think the most important factor to ascertain is how well basic skills are taught. Since LW 1's child won't have the disadvantages of other students, it is reasonable to ask if, with the reinforcement available in his home, he will adequately master those skills.
Though our neighborhood school was high-achieving, we sent our son to a Catholic parish school because of its religious education. It was also smaller than the public school-he was very shy. But it did not have a visual arts program so we augmented with weekend classes that not everyone can afford. He went to a small diverse public arts high school in a city with low-achieving schools, his an exception. Yet it admitted on the basis of arts without regard to academics. With teachers providing extra help, 90+% of students go on to post-secondary education. There is no one answer for everyone.
But a diverse environment is good for children. I think the most important factor to ascertain is how well basic skills are taught. Since LW 1's child won't have the disadvantages of other students, it is reasonable to ask if, with the reinforcement available in his home, he will adequately master those skills.
Though our neighborhood school was high-achieving, we sent our son to a Catholic parish school because of its religious education. It was also smaller than the public school-he was very shy. But it did not have a visual arts program so we augmented with weekend classes that not everyone can afford. He went to a small diverse public arts high school in a city with low-achieving schools, his an exception. Yet it admitted on the basis of arts without regard to academics. With teachers providing extra help, 90+% of students go on to post-secondary education. There is no one answer for everyone.
4
Kindergarten isn't going to make or break an education. I realize that one-per-centers think otherwise, but when the revolution comes, it will be good for your child to have some connection to the common people. Make this year one in which you do all you can for your child and for his school, and don't forsake your community out of uneducated fear!
9
What about the ethics of helping your local school instead of using your economic power to disengage? We enrolled our three children in the local school which had low test scores. we also lobbied the school for better programs, which we got! There's now an enrichment program for all elementary age children as a result. Our town is more than just a zip code and a school district; it's where we live. We wanted to make it better for our children and everyone's children.
14
Lots of parents face similar dilemmas all the time. I went to Oakland public schools but did go out of my district for high school. I think you should start your child at the local school and see how it goes. My own kids have been in 5 public school districts and one private school. All schools have a few excellent teachers and a few duds. If you can get your child in with a good teacher she/he might thrive and learn a few good life lessons at the same time. If the local school doesn't work out then change him/her to a different school. No school is all good or all bad. Give it a try! Sean Eagan
8
The first case pertains to a Kindergarten child of educated and working parents worrying whether to admit their child in a failed Public School or to some other good Public School. In my opinion, it makes practically no difference if they admit their child in that school. All that they have to do is guide the child at home. It doesn't take much time at all. In spite of being very busy, they still can spend some time with their child, being busy is no excuse at all in this case. Actual education starts from the sixth grade and as such nothing to worry.
The second case pertains to the brother and sister lamenting about their extravagant parents. How did they come up if not for their parents ? What would they have done if put under foster care or in some orphanage or given up for adoption ? They appear to have decent income. As such they should invariably take care of the parents without expecting anything further from them since nowhere it's mentioned that they have had a very nasty childhood because of their parents.
The third case is a real dilemma. If I were to be in his shoes and if I were in any position to help my friend, who have had a very rough phase, I would have certainly helped him by taking him to the deaddiction centre and even meeting the expenses to the extent possible. I would have tried my best not to get him indulged in such a fashion in office.
The second case pertains to the brother and sister lamenting about their extravagant parents. How did they come up if not for their parents ? What would they have done if put under foster care or in some orphanage or given up for adoption ? They appear to have decent income. As such they should invariably take care of the parents without expecting anything further from them since nowhere it's mentioned that they have had a very nasty childhood because of their parents.
The third case is a real dilemma. If I were to be in his shoes and if I were in any position to help my friend, who have had a very rough phase, I would have certainly helped him by taking him to the deaddiction centre and even meeting the expenses to the extent possible. I would have tried my best not to get him indulged in such a fashion in office.
2
Been there, done that. Send your child to the best school you can. No one at the poor school will miss you or care... and that's part of the problem.
16
"There’s no recognizably human world where parents treat their own children the same as everyone else’s." Um. I'm going to assume you are not saying that cultures set up in exactly that way (e.g., those in which all adult males were responsible for seeing that all juveniles were fed and protected, without having any special relationship with --or even knowing-- their own offspring) were subhuman. That was, of course, the argument of the conquerers who spread the "norm" of the nuclear family around the world. So, I won't condemn you for bigotry, merely ask you to acquaint yourself with the anthropology of child-rearing and family construction.
3
My kids went for a year to a struggling public school. My children were bright, had plenty of support at home. They were almost the only children in the entire school who were white and had parents whose native language was English. What upset me about the school was that the teachers had such low expectations. They expected their students to fail or to drop out. In 6th grade, my son was being taught to survive on the streets.
I don't know whether the teachers in your Oakland school are the same, but especially for early grades, where the most basic skills are taught, I'd seek out the best school I could find.
I don't know whether the teachers in your Oakland school are the same, but especially for early grades, where the most basic skills are taught, I'd seek out the best school I could find.
7
Very seldom do standardized test scores reflect the quality of teaching. My advice: get to know some of the teachers, from kindergarten through that school's highest grade. You will find some amazing professionals who teach beautifully while also juggling counseling, first aid, and spending much of their own money to support the kids. The city's "poorest kids" are often stressed and have to deal, daily, with both food and home insecurity. Additionally, as in my city, they are often new to the country. Their English is limited, but they enrich the community and the schools in so many ways. All of these aforementioned kids often have to overhear that they "bring down" test scores, as do kids in a third category - kids with learning disabilities. Talk to teachers. Meet with the principals, the guidance counselor, some parents. If school leaders and teachers embrace the diversity of their population, and are upbeat about all students, it's the right place for your child. Finally, standardized tests do not assess the quality of a school. They do not reflect quality of teaching, or how kids learn. They often polarize students into the "haves" and "have-nots". And please do not assume a school with low test scores is "dysfunctional". "Appalling results" should not be your greatest concern. Rather, be appalled by poverty, prejudice, and by the assumption that large companies who write these tests are considered the judges of our public schools' quality.
6
That dilemma - how to reconcile my public obligations with my family's interests is taking on new energy as people become more aware of institutional racism. Dumping your kid in a lousy school (or neighborhood) may not accomplish much, but political activism potentially could.
http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2016/01/why-we-live-in-a-white-neighborhood/
http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2016/01/why-we-live-in-a-white-neighborhood/
I think these parents need to go back to school. They know from their own experience that a school is “perfectly fine” yet they are swayed by a metric which studies have proven is unreliable and invalid as a measure of school quality. These are the same kinds of people who won’t try a restaurant until it receives 5 stars on Yelp. My advice: use your education to think a little.
My other beef is with the so-called Ethicist who advises a “my-kids-come-first mentality” because it might “make for some of the best schools”. Sure, putting all the kids with college educated parents who have the resources for tutoring, arts classes and trips to the museum will corral a set of higher achieving kids, but it doesn’t mean the teachers are doing any better job. Is the Ethicist really advising fleeing city schools and abandoning those without the resources to escape? Advising citizens to turn the social contract on its head is anything but ethical.
My other beef is with the so-called Ethicist who advises a “my-kids-come-first mentality” because it might “make for some of the best schools”. Sure, putting all the kids with college educated parents who have the resources for tutoring, arts classes and trips to the museum will corral a set of higher achieving kids, but it doesn’t mean the teachers are doing any better job. Is the Ethicist really advising fleeing city schools and abandoning those without the resources to escape? Advising citizens to turn the social contract on its head is anything but ethical.
5
Do not make a child a "non-voting" participant in a parent's altruistic endeavors. He/she may never forgive you for doing so; I haven't.
9
Spot on. My social justice oriented parents bought into a diverse working-class town with the intention their kids would grow up with many different friends of different backgrounds. Fast-forward 15 years: the schools were increasingly invaded by gang rivalries, my sister and I were bullied and ostracized, the gifted and honors programs were gone, and stressed teachers enlisted us as unpaid teachers' assistants rather than challenging us. We were miserable and begged our parents to shell out for private high schools, where we struggled to catch up. Fast-forward to today: my parents' beautiful family home in a lovely neighborhood is worth less than what they paid for it, and no family in their right mind will buy into that town and its schools. Be very aware of your kids' options and changing environments once they're placed in a system. Things can look totally different by the time they reach middle school.
12
I think the guy in the last scenario could have said to his friend, "Whoa, look...they put up cameras and changed procedures! Must be something going on....", without betraying the boss. Indeed, perhaps the opposite, if the thefts stopped, and the boss was spared the considerable hassle of prosecuting an employee. Though I suppose you could make the case that the friend was something of a dolt to not notice the changes as well....
Also saying to him, "Hey, you seem to be struggling; anything I can do to help", would have been nice, too.
Also saying to him, "Hey, you seem to be struggling; anything I can do to help", would have been nice, too.
6
Kwame, I think u you missed an important point on the school issue. A significant part of the success of a child in school is the participation of parents in the education process. I've tutored in under performing schools and the biggest challenge for students was their home life. Uneducated parents, absent parents and often poverty that sends children to school hungry.
These parents who've written to you are educated and want the best for their child. This will make all the difference in the world no matter what school they choose. Ultimately the choice is theirs but if they stick with this school, continue to volunteer as ability permits and stay engaged with their child all will benefit.
These parents who've written to you are educated and want the best for their child. This will make all the difference in the world no matter what school they choose. Ultimately the choice is theirs but if they stick with this school, continue to volunteer as ability permits and stay engaged with their child all will benefit.
4
So many readers emphasize that "test scores are just test scores." OK, so send kids to a school where those test scores are high! Don't experiment with your children or put some ethical quandary on their backs!
2
When parents sends a child to school, the parents are choosing their kids friends and values. My kids went to private school even though, academically, my school district is among the top five in the state. It is important that you support you neighborhood public school, even when your child doesn't attend the school.
3
Before writing off your local school, please look beyond average test scores. See if you can get the distribution of test scores -- if there is substantial group at the high end, consider sending your child to the local school. My daughter goes to a high school that is considered "not good" because of mediocre test scores. Yet there are enough high-performing kids that she has a group of friends who are in gifted/talented/honors classes and are doing very well. There is no lack of challenge -- she needs to work hard to keep her grades up. We are quite satisfied with her progress.
8
If you send the kid to a crummy school how is he supposed to become a limousine liberal?
2
The response to the quandary of where to send a child to school is disappointingly shortsighted. Sure, the parent’s first loyalty must be to their own child, but judging the quality of the neighborhood school by test scores alone is foolish. The test scores might well be low not because the quality of the teaching is poor but because the quality of the tests is poor or, even if the tests are well-constructed, because the children come from poor families and test scores reflect that fact. Putting the son of motivated, educated parents into that environment might well not only improve the school but also the education of the son, by exposing the child to greater diversity than he or or she might get in a private school. The son might well get better attention from teachers who are thrilled to have him in their classes. And looking ahead, coming with a strong record out of the public schools in an urban setting is going to look a good deal better on a college application than coming out of some fancy private school. That is the choice that we made for our children with respect to the DC Public Schools, and it worked well for them.
Now, not every kid will benefit from going to a school filled with poor kids. These parents do have to evaluate how their son will handle that situation, and they should definitely do what is best for their child in the long run. but that might well entail ignoring Kwame Anthony Appiahs’s prejudices about test scores
Now, not every kid will benefit from going to a school filled with poor kids. These parents do have to evaluate how their son will handle that situation, and they should definitely do what is best for their child in the long run. but that might well entail ignoring Kwame Anthony Appiahs’s prejudices about test scores
5
As the parent of a 12th grader who has done well despite going to poor, urban, public schools, I would second everything you say in this comment. A school like this isn't for everyone, and you need to keep your eyes open while your child is there, but, then again, a high pressure school full of neurotic professionals' kids isn't for everyone either.
I have discovered that what you say about the colleges preferring high achieving kids from urban public schools - it's absolutely true. And I don't feel bad about that at all after enduring years of people telling me I was committing child abuse by sending my kids to the schools I sent them to.
I have discovered that what you say about the colleges preferring high achieving kids from urban public schools - it's absolutely true. And I don't feel bad about that at all after enduring years of people telling me I was committing child abuse by sending my kids to the schools I sent them to.
6
You owe it to YOUR children to give them the best education that you can afford up through high school. After that, most colleges are comparable.
3
As for number 3, it seems to me that the inquirer might well have warned the fellow officer worker whom he or she suspected, and indeed all fellow employees, without necessarily angering the boss. The boss wants to stop the thefts, but not necessarily to catch a current employee in flagante delicto, and warning everybody that there are now surveillance cameras would have a severe deterrent effect on future stealing.
1
As a parent in the 11th year of our child's public education in a diverse neighboring community to Oakland, I can attest that test scores are not connected to the quality of education provided by the teachers or the school. It is all too easy for us to look at a school's average test scores as though it were a ranking from Wine Spectator or Robert Parker; that isn't how it works. If the majority of children in the school are from underprivileged families, the overall test scores are very likely to be low, even though the quality of instruction is high, and some students may have high test scores. Your child may very well receive an excellent education at that "low performing" school. However, your child will become increasingly influenced by the students around her/him. Are their peers razzing her for being a nerd, reading too much, doing well in class, being a teacher's pet? Will they feel pressure to fit in? Will they have to sit and wait for everyone else to catch up? It can be very challenging for teachers to differentiate learning. No, you are not ethically bound to send your child to a "low performing" school. However, take a longer look. Talk to the teachers. Talk to the Principal. Talk to the other parents. Go to an open house. Make your decision based on that, rather than the scores.
15
I think these parents need to go back to school. They know from their own experience that a school is "perfectly fine" yet they are swayed by a metric which studies have proven is unreliable and invalid as a measure of school quality. These are the same kinds of people who won't try a restaurant until it receives 5 stars on Yelp. My advice: use your education to think a little.
My other beef is with the so-called Ethicist who advises a "my-kids-come-first mentality" because it might "make for some of the best schools". Sure, putting all the kids with college educated parents who have the resources for tutoring, arts classes and trips to the museum will corral a set of higher achieving kids, but it doesn't mean the teachers are doing any better job. Is the Ethicist really advising fleeing city schools and abandoning those without the resources to escape? Advising citizens to turn the social contract on its head is anything but ethical.
My other beef is with the so-called Ethicist who advises a "my-kids-come-first mentality" because it might "make for some of the best schools". Sure, putting all the kids with college educated parents who have the resources for tutoring, arts classes and trips to the museum will corral a set of higher achieving kids, but it doesn't mean the teachers are doing any better job. Is the Ethicist really advising fleeing city schools and abandoning those without the resources to escape? Advising citizens to turn the social contract on its head is anything but ethical.
15
#1 - You have an absolute obligation to send your kids to the best school you can. Your theories about education and community come second. You can still put them into practice, just not by sacrificing your kids' future.
#2 - If you and your brother supported your parents extravagant lifestyle for so long, then I think it's safe to say that YOU paid for that jewelry. You are entitled to any proceeds from the sale, which you will inevitably put towards your own retirement.
#3 - He would probably have found another way to screw up his life even if you had saved him from that method. You didn't do the wrong thing, but it's sad anyway.
#2 - If you and your brother supported your parents extravagant lifestyle for so long, then I think it's safe to say that YOU paid for that jewelry. You are entitled to any proceeds from the sale, which you will inevitably put towards your own retirement.
#3 - He would probably have found another way to screw up his life even if you had saved him from that method. You didn't do the wrong thing, but it's sad anyway.
5
But what constitutes the "best" school? As a parent of a kid whose oldest will (fingers crossed!) graduate from high school in June, I have come to the conclusion that standardized state test scores count for close to nothing in determining which school is best. I still am not sure how to count all the other factors, but I would definitely say there is no clear better and worse school. A lot of it depends on the particular child.
3
Oops, I mean that my oldest child is in the 12th grade!
We sent our child to a private high school for a variety of reasons. We got a lot of judgment from friends and comments like "What's wrong with OUR high school?" It was hard but we made the right decision for our child. THe kids routinely kept in touch (text messages, calls, hanging out after school, etc.). Fast forward to today, all the hometown friends are still in each others' lives and they get together daily when they are home on break from college. Friendships that matter can be sustained no matter where any of them actually go to school. It takes effort and time but if they deem it worthy, they will and they do.
1
You state that the school has some of the poorest kids in the city attending the school has low test scores because "there must be something seriously wrong with the school?" How about this scenario: children from families with limited resources to feed, shelter, and care for them go to the school. The school's faculty is making the most of trying to educate kids who come to school with learning issues like hunger and homelessness. They'd probably have more moderate income kids in the school if people like you didn't engage in de facto racial and economic segregation, probably aided by your city's upper middle class governing structure. Do what you want -- it's your child -- but ultimately you could at least acknowledge that your choice to put your kid in a "better" school (read school with less poor kids) plays a part in why the "bad" school is so bad. If you care, you could at least vote for Board of Ed candidates who endorse improving all schools (rather than funneling tax dollars to for-profit charter schools that help only a few students but enrich lots of hedge fund managers) and a city, state and federal government that recognizes that poverty is the number one contributor to "bad schools"
3
"State test scores came out recently, and our neighborhood public school, which is filled with some of the city’s poorest kids, scored very low." Public schools take (and test) every kid, regardless of circumstances, and do their very best to advance them to academic, social and developmental benchmarks. These targets are more difficult for children coming from the poorest circumstances because of many of the issues affecting them at home, but it does not mean that your child will not be well educated in the neighborhood school. Testing - especially in light of the revised standards under Common Core - can be misleading, and seeks to land a simplified measure on a complex undertaking. Since you and your wife are providing your child with academic encouragement, value, interest, and come from an educated background, your child is better poised to succeed in any school. Kindergarten is not college. If you like where you live, and the school "seems perfectly fine," have a first-hand experience as parents of a student. If it doesn't meet your standards and is unresponsive, then it's time to move on.
2
When my parents were transferred by my dad's company to a small town in Florida, I ended up in what I can only describe as a VERY substandard elementary school. It wasn't the teachers..even I could see they were working hard, but I was surrounded by children from homes where education was just something foisted on them by the state..most of them dropped out as soon as they could. We had some sad, overaged, students whose families were migrant workers...we had a couple of 14-yr-olds in our fourth-grade class. It was not a stimulating environment, to say the least. I can remember begging my parents to let me go to a boarding-school somewhere. I survived somehow, but, most of my own learning took place out of that environment. Yeah, it's not always the teachers/school, but the student population and their families that make a big difference in the quality.
2
Re Oakland:
"we can’t put in the kind of time that would be required to turn the school around"
Wow, quite a bit of presumption there.
"we can’t put in the kind of time that would be required to turn the school around"
Wow, quite a bit of presumption there.
1
I think that the writer's issues on the school question are the wrong ones. If this were my school (and there were times in my children's lives when I was in a similar situation), I would ask the principal what programs exist in the school for bright, well-prepared students. And I would, in that conversation, express my concern over the average scores that had been reported, and ask if s/he could tell me what percentage of the children scored above, say, the average score at a "good" school, or more than a year above grade level, or whatever the appropriate measurement is. And then you make the best choice for your child.
3
I taught in schools in Oakland as a substitute. Sometimes it's not the administration, sometimes it's the anti education culture of the neighborhood. Sometimes it is the administration. Your children are not in school to improve the schools test scores, especially if they will be harmed by the environment. I wouldn't take a chance on the school.
6
Don't feel sorry for the coworker who chose to steal. In my opinion being an alcoholic is a choice and a person who is an alcoholic decides that their pleasure is more important than other people's needs and desires. Which is pretty much the decision process of a thief. Ending up homeless is to be expected for a person who has burned all the people who tried to help him in his life if you warned him he should penalty stilll have stolen or he would have found some other way to hurt the people he worked with. That is his mode of operation.
1
I wish The Ethicist's response addressed the assumption that "there is something seriously wrong with how the school is educating the kids." Isn't it much more likely that the life conditions of the kids have prevented them from performing as well as the kids in the wealthier neighborhood? This writer's child will likely test fine, because he will enter ready to learn. His good scores will help raise the school's scores. Why not TRY the school and move the child if necessary?
2
Once it became evident that the letter writer's friend was a thief, why did he continue to consider him a friend, and even consider that he owed him any of the obligations of friendship? Rather than ask himself whether or not he should have tipped off his "friend," why doesn't he ask whether or not he should have tipped off his bosses?
The advice to the Oakland couple made me queasy. They said themselves, from volunteering in the school, they know that nothing is wrong there, but the test scores are off-putting. So is it possible that the test is a problem? As a teacher in a public school with low state test scores and a brilliant staff and student body, my guess is that the problem is not the school. Communities need to invest in their public schools and push back against the unfortunate culture of testing in this country, which is clearly just one of the root causes of the fracturing of communities. Standardized tests do not capture the uniqueness and value of each student and their experiences, in the forms of their struggles, often often due to growing up in poverty, as well as their ideas and questions and interests.
Invest in your community public schools and don't buy in to the high-stakes testing propaganda, which only exists to make textbook companies richer, discriminate against already-marginalized populations, and invalidate an important public institution and basic right to quality education for all. Think of yourselves as first-generation students. What scores would your school have reported? What would you tell a family who was deciding to pull their child from the shcool?
Invest in your community public schools and don't buy in to the high-stakes testing propaganda, which only exists to make textbook companies richer, discriminate against already-marginalized populations, and invalidate an important public institution and basic right to quality education for all. Think of yourselves as first-generation students. What scores would your school have reported? What would you tell a family who was deciding to pull their child from the shcool?
3
I don't buy the advice given to the writer of the last question. While the boss installed cameras in response to money disappearing from the register, I don't believe his motivation was to ruin someone's life. He was primarily interested in not vein taken advantage of. So, if the writer had warned his friend that cameras where in place in the office and the friend heeded the advice and stopped stealing the money then a win win situation would have resulted; the boss would not have lost any more money and the friend, while guilty for past acts, would still have had his job. Although, from an ethical point of view, my solution is not perfect, but life is not perfect.
Assuming there is not a lot of class time wasted on classroom management/behavior the school could be fine. As the kid gets older, though, he needs to be with lots of other kids who are planning to attend college.
I don't agree with depriving kids of opportunities just because other kids don't have those opportunities. So, there are kids in some countries who cannot attend school, and kids even here who don't have appropriate clothing to wear or books in the home. That doesn't mean I should keep my kid out of school and deprive him of books and a warm coat. I should give my kid what he needs but ALSO do what I can to make sure other kids have what they need.
I don't agree with depriving kids of opportunities just because other kids don't have those opportunities. So, there are kids in some countries who cannot attend school, and kids even here who don't have appropriate clothing to wear or books in the home. That doesn't mean I should keep my kid out of school and deprive him of books and a warm coat. I should give my kid what he needs but ALSO do what I can to make sure other kids have what they need.
Re; Public School dilemma
I disagree. You are not "sacrificing your son" by enrolling him in local school. He will get most of his real learning from his parents and the local school may also provide other intangible assets. The key is first to try to make sure he gets good teachers any for you to have him share his daily experiences with you. Only if he seems scared of going to the school should you consider a change
I disagree. You are not "sacrificing your son" by enrolling him in local school. He will get most of his real learning from his parents and the local school may also provide other intangible assets. The key is first to try to make sure he gets good teachers any for you to have him share his daily experiences with you. Only if he seems scared of going to the school should you consider a change
Peer pressure will become evident as your child progresses up the grade. If the kids don't value learning, for whatever reason, your child could have a hard time if he/she does love to learn and may get the message: learning isn't cool. Lots of factor go into choosing a school to the extent that you can choose. And it's about choice!
1
As an educator and product of "poor public schools," I will say that the ethicist's answer completely misses the mark.
Do poorer school districts have unique challenges? Of course. But judging a school, which looks perfectly fine by their own assessment, based solely on test scores, is ridiculous. What causes poor test scores? Culturally biased tests, a higher percentage of non-native speakers, parents who don't "test-prep" their children. None of these have to do with the quality of the kids or the quality of education offered at the school.
I think we are also overlooking the socializing effects of public schools. The lessons a child in a diverse district will learn - empathy, an appreciation for diverse cultures and circumstances, humility, and a drive for social justice, are just as important as learning the ABCs, which, don't fool yourselves - you can more than teach him as parents.
I am a better human being as a result of growing up with friends who were diverse - both ethnically and economically. I cannot say the same of my peers who went to the "better public schools."
Do poorer school districts have unique challenges? Of course. But judging a school, which looks perfectly fine by their own assessment, based solely on test scores, is ridiculous. What causes poor test scores? Culturally biased tests, a higher percentage of non-native speakers, parents who don't "test-prep" their children. None of these have to do with the quality of the kids or the quality of education offered at the school.
I think we are also overlooking the socializing effects of public schools. The lessons a child in a diverse district will learn - empathy, an appreciation for diverse cultures and circumstances, humility, and a drive for social justice, are just as important as learning the ABCs, which, don't fool yourselves - you can more than teach him as parents.
I am a better human being as a result of growing up with friends who were diverse - both ethnically and economically. I cannot say the same of my peers who went to the "better public schools."
3
The first story notes, "I am also painfully aware that this kind of my-kid-comes-first mentality is exactly what created poor urban schools to begin with." Well, not exactly. What created poor (urban) public schools was the migration of millions of poor/minority families to inner city America. Once there, many of these kids had no real means of escape, creating generational, chronically under performing schools. Public charter schools are only a recent phenomena, allowing at least some of these youngsters the opportunity at an adequate public education...if their parents had the wherewithal to seek such enrollment. This choice, previously afforded only to families of means, was still no guarantee; the charter had to be operated by a reputable and competent founder with rules that would allow for learning for the children so inclined.
1
Throughout my 25 years of teaching, I've told countless parents this: students with the abilities to achieve - curiosity, self-discipline, and persistence - will achieve wherever they are. High flyers and middlers will be fine with consistent parental interest and support. If the parents here are willing to go all in, all the time, with their son's teachers and the community and him, then he will succeed.
The only consideration I would suggest is for students with needs. If there are special circumstances regarding a student's ability to learn, then that would warrant a search for the very best place for him or her, which may or may not be the neighborhood school.
Ability to achieve vs. ability to learn: these are the determinants.
Test scores, as others have noted, are wholly irrelevant.
The only consideration I would suggest is for students with needs. If there are special circumstances regarding a student's ability to learn, then that would warrant a search for the very best place for him or her, which may or may not be the neighborhood school.
Ability to achieve vs. ability to learn: these are the determinants.
Test scores, as others have noted, are wholly irrelevant.
3
I understand the problem this couple faces, in feeling like they might not be able to give much time to working on improving the school. Sorry, however, that I don't think this really gives them a by on getting more involved. Do they realize how many of the parents in this school's area are also encumbered with responsibility? Many are likely single parents, others are likely working multiple part-time jobs in order to keep their families in an apartment, and some will be too intimidated by their own lack of strong educational background to find ways to work with the schools.
We all can rationalize away our responsibility for building strong schools in all parts of our cities. I am guessing that their plans to put their son into a "better" school will include a lot of involvement in that school, if just in spending more time transporting him to and from classes and added activities. Oh, and that way, they won't have to interact with other parents who might not be quite so much like them either.
We all can rationalize away our responsibility for building strong schools in all parts of our cities. I am guessing that their plans to put their son into a "better" school will include a lot of involvement in that school, if just in spending more time transporting him to and from classes and added activities. Oh, and that way, they won't have to interact with other parents who might not be quite so much like them either.
It is entirely appropriate for parents to want their children to get the best education possible. There is no moral obligation to send them to schools that are rated as low-scoring, underperforming, or even dangerous.
Most immigrants came to the US to better themselves, which often meant personal sacrifice so their children could lead better lives. This value is held not just by immigrants, but those whose families have been in the US for several or many generations.
A highly educated friend in a large city could afford private school. However, for ethical reasons he sent his children to an "underperforming" local public school in order to integrate them with children of different races and socio-economic status. His children were regularly robbed of their lunch money, bullied and even occasionally assaulted by the other students, something school officials seemed unable to prevent. Over a period of years the children developed psychological problems that did not respond to therapy: fear of minorities, and anger at/hatred of their parents. The children, who did well in early grades before being forced to attend a "low-scoring" school, were ill-prepared for and did not do well in the average-quality colleges they managed to get into.
Sending one's children to a school that is known to be "low-scoring" is not doing them a favor, and could even be seen as curtailing their future opportunities or even harming or endangering them.
Most immigrants came to the US to better themselves, which often meant personal sacrifice so their children could lead better lives. This value is held not just by immigrants, but those whose families have been in the US for several or many generations.
A highly educated friend in a large city could afford private school. However, for ethical reasons he sent his children to an "underperforming" local public school in order to integrate them with children of different races and socio-economic status. His children were regularly robbed of their lunch money, bullied and even occasionally assaulted by the other students, something school officials seemed unable to prevent. Over a period of years the children developed psychological problems that did not respond to therapy: fear of minorities, and anger at/hatred of their parents. The children, who did well in early grades before being forced to attend a "low-scoring" school, were ill-prepared for and did not do well in the average-quality colleges they managed to get into.
Sending one's children to a school that is known to be "low-scoring" is not doing them a favor, and could even be seen as curtailing their future opportunities or even harming or endangering them.
3
Why would anyone even ask such a question? Have we become so PC that we would sacrifice the education of our own child out of some misguided sense of responsibility for our public schools? Our responsibility is in paying our taxes and voting for school board members in elections, and a mayor and governor who would work for the public schools. If one has the option of either moving, applying to a better magnet school or even paying for an independent school, then one should do so. If none of these are options, then trying to volunteer and get involved in the school is a far distant second best. There is only so much even a group of parents can do with a public school.
No matter how hard the teachers try, if there are poorly socialized children in the school whose disruptiveness or extreme needs keep those who can do well with a good teacher from getting what THEY need and deserve, it's not going to be a positive experience.
No matter how hard the teachers try, if there are poorly socialized children in the school whose disruptiveness or extreme needs keep those who can do well with a good teacher from getting what THEY need and deserve, it's not going to be a positive experience.
4
Forget moral obligation; one family can't shoulder the weight of the community alone. But the letter writer is correct when he points out that flight to higher performing schools (i.e. schools full of students from families that take education seriously) creates "poorly performing" schools in the first place. Professor Appiah can brush this off all he likes, but it's the truth; if the school seems "perfectly fine" besides the low test scores from the city's poorest children, then maybe the school isn't the primary problem? Maybe it's the poverty?
2
School choice is tricky.
Parents should first and above all look for a school that is safe and provides goods peers. After that, the academic question is trickier.
If the school teaches to the average in the classroom - presents material that is harder than the least capable student can handle and easier than the most capable student can handle - where your own child stacks up compared to that average is important. If that classroom average is far below your own child's capability, the child will be underserved, bored, and will lag his or her potential. If the school teaches to an average that is closer to your own child's ability, he or she will get more from the experience.
So parents should look at the overall classroom and assess where that average lies. For us, in the early elementary years, a private Catholic school was stronger. Selection bias steered strong students toward the parochial school. By middle school, the opportunities were about par, and by high school the public school, with a lot of AP and honors courses, was stronger.
Parents have an obligation to do the best for their kids, but the opportunity to self define the term "best." For us, it was what served our child's personal academic education, not our own social goals. That can differ among parents.
Parents should first and above all look for a school that is safe and provides goods peers. After that, the academic question is trickier.
If the school teaches to the average in the classroom - presents material that is harder than the least capable student can handle and easier than the most capable student can handle - where your own child stacks up compared to that average is important. If that classroom average is far below your own child's capability, the child will be underserved, bored, and will lag his or her potential. If the school teaches to an average that is closer to your own child's ability, he or she will get more from the experience.
So parents should look at the overall classroom and assess where that average lies. For us, in the early elementary years, a private Catholic school was stronger. Selection bias steered strong students toward the parochial school. By middle school, the opportunities were about par, and by high school the public school, with a lot of AP and honors courses, was stronger.
Parents have an obligation to do the best for their kids, but the opportunity to self define the term "best." For us, it was what served our child's personal academic education, not our own social goals. That can differ among parents.
1
For the parents in a public school quandary: are you able to obtain that testing data in a more disaggregated form than simply the school average? You may find it helpful to see scores for the top 10 or 20% of students in the school. High-poverty student populations (as you know) often generate very low test scores, due to all kinds of circumstances that the school itself can't influence--including transience (meaning that many of the tested students haven't even been in the school for long). The question most relevant to you is how the school serves students who do have significant home support. Where I live, there are some public schools with lousy avg. test scores, and terrible reps within the middle class, but that actually have both impressive student-growth outcomes, fall to spring, AND strong accelerated options for students who can benefit from those. These strengths are invisible in the averaged scores, due to the disadvantaged circumstances of most students in the school. So just something to pay attention to, as you make your careful decision. We're engaged in a similar process (and dilemma), in my family.
2
The fact that the first writer even thinks it would be possible to "turn the school around" by one family investing a significant amount of time says to me that that family shouldn't be at that school. One affluent family cannot "save" a lower income school no matter how much time they invest. It's arrogant to think so, and I would say this attitude in itself should answer their question about what to do.
3
I grew up in an extremely poor rural community in the 1960s. Our school was in disrepair, the teachers were worn down, the curriculum was uninspired, our classes were crowded (50-plus students in one room during fifth grade), and many of my fellow students suffered from malnutrition. (Our school was safe, though.) I excelled in academics and went to a state university on full academic scholarship and graduated with honors. I believe what made my school experience successful was that my parents (both only 19 when I was born) were readers and taught me to be a reader -- nothing fancy, just weekly trips to the public library for four or five books (and a steady dose of comic books!). I remember when my fourth grade studied deserts, I was the only one who knew how to pronounce gila monster because I had read "Little Orphan Annie and the Gila Monster Gang." I don't know which choice the couple should make that is best for their situation, but I do know that a love of reading will overcome a mediocre educational environment.
6
We, too, are going to have the school problem once we have children. I'm first generation Canadian born, with parents from Hong Kong, while my husband is from another city in Canada. We both grew up in the suburbs, but chose to live in the city because we want easy access to museums, theatres and other cultural institutions. However, the local public school here is mediocre at best based on statistics (test scores). If we want our hypothetical children to attend public school, we could either send them to a French Immersion program (which has its benefits, though kids tend to graduate without being truly fluent in both languages), which would be at a different school, or the English/"regular" stream at that school (which would mean it is out of our catchment area and availability is based on openings available). Alternative public school is yet another option. Within only one generation, I'm already thinking like a "white, multigeneration Canadian" mother rather than a child of (non-white) immigrants, who, according to local media, are less likely to consider French Immersion (actual immigrant parents are even less likely). We all want our children to have the same type of education we did growing up (or better).
1
My wife and I went through the same exercise with our two kids, one now in college and the other in HS. Both of us were public-school educated, urban and suburban, and we felt strongly about the value - in terms of cultural exposure - of an urban, public school experience. I can say with confidence that it worked quite well in elementary school. But the well-known pathologies emerged in middle-and high school, including, most damaging, a clear easing of academic standards to enable lesser-performing students to advance. I know this is unfashionable, but we also didn't like the fairly regular baby showers held for young teen expecting mothers. Eventually, when our kids were doing no homework and still getting straight As, we transferred them into more rigorous private schools that fortunately, we could afford. As it happens, we believe that the combined experience was valuable for our kids.
9
I kept my daughter in a poor public middle school as part of my commitment to public schools. It was the biggest educational mistake I made as a parent. Do what is best for your child and don't let anyone make you feel guilty.
7
City public schools take in all children. They embrace children who don't, yet, speak English, variously challenged kids and kids who have been booted out of wealthy, private schools.
Public schools open their arms to all children. If city public schools are doing their job, testing score should be way lower than private schools or schools in wealthy neighborhoods where the foreign speaking and challenged children aren't a large part of the population.
My daughters - who are anglo - went to city public schools in Indianapolis. The schools were significantly African-American majority. They got terrific, wide ranging educations.
City, public school teachers are passionate about teaching. It is truly a calling for them. My daughters - now in their 20s & 30s have a wide, diverse bunch of friends because they grew up in a wide, diverse school population.
I believe sending children to public schools is the only creative and patriotic choice American parents can make. They are all our children. They all deserve the best.
Public schools open their arms to all children. If city public schools are doing their job, testing score should be way lower than private schools or schools in wealthy neighborhoods where the foreign speaking and challenged children aren't a large part of the population.
My daughters - who are anglo - went to city public schools in Indianapolis. The schools were significantly African-American majority. They got terrific, wide ranging educations.
City, public school teachers are passionate about teaching. It is truly a calling for them. My daughters - now in their 20s & 30s have a wide, diverse bunch of friends because they grew up in a wide, diverse school population.
I believe sending children to public schools is the only creative and patriotic choice American parents can make. They are all our children. They all deserve the best.
2
Is it too cynical to expect that the Ethicist's answer is based on the statement "My wife and I are an interracial couple..."? If they had been a white couple refusing to send their child across town to a black school, would the response have been understanding or condemnation? It's the same response of limousine liberals for 50 years, not to mention the editorial policy of the NYT: MY child is a precious darling guaranteed admission to medical school before she even enters kindergarten, YOUR white working class child is a Nazi who must be punished for slavery and the Holocaust by being shipped across town to a ghetto school. And yet these same liberals will scratch their heads wondering where all Donald Trump's supporters are coming from.
1
From the evidence you've given, it sounds like your mind is already made up. You failed to present much evidence in favor of the neighborhood school - it would seem as though the school has nothing to offer your son, only to you. But it's worth thinking about what you will be sacrificing for your son by sending him out of the neighborhood:
-Time lost to commuting (how many hours a week will he be in a car, rather than home or at an activity?)
-Ties to neighborhood kids and families
-Easy access to friends and play dates
-Friends of different SES
And you've said very little about the school with better test scores. Are its teachers teaching to the test? Is it a wonderful school, or just one that performs well on tests?
I'm not saying these should outweigh your other factors, but you presented no significant argument for your neighborhood school, and little about the "better" school. The deck here has been stacked.
-Time lost to commuting (how many hours a week will he be in a car, rather than home or at an activity?)
-Ties to neighborhood kids and families
-Easy access to friends and play dates
-Friends of different SES
And you've said very little about the school with better test scores. Are its teachers teaching to the test? Is it a wonderful school, or just one that performs well on tests?
I'm not saying these should outweigh your other factors, but you presented no significant argument for your neighborhood school, and little about the "better" school. The deck here has been stacked.
I faced a similar dilemma and chose to permit my child into a better school. Are the parents at the low scoring school involved in the school community? I wanted a school for my son that had an active parent community. Parent volunteers can make a huge impact. The red flag for me about the school my son was supposed to go to was that there were no parent volunteers when I toured the school. I wanted a school that was more than just a place to drop off my son. Test scores are not the only important factor. In trying to decide where to send my son for school I learned that the higher scoring schools have extra spots in kindergarten and they fill up these spots with students from lower performing schools. If you wait until after kindergarten to find a different school, it is much more challenging to find a "good" one with extra space.
As a graduate of Oakland public schools myself, I feel I have to comment on the first letter writer's situation. I grew up in Fruitvale, one of the poorer areas in the city, and my parents sent me to our local public schools in the 1990s and 2000s.
Looking back, my experience in OUSD was amazing. The teachers were passionate about their work and sincerely cared about their students -- they had to be, in order to continue teaching in such a difficult environment. They knew that for many of us, a great education would make a great difference in our lives. Many kids come from backgrounds where school is a sanctuary compared to home; many kids (including me) had parents who never had the opportunity to pursue education themselves. There's a great risk that teachers in poor urban schools must think about: that if they fail to instill a sincere appreciation for learning, their students may very well fail to graduate and fail to rise above poverty.
There's no obvious choice in your dilemma. However, unlike many parents, you DO have a choice. Do some research, ask around, and see if you think your child can succeed in either school.
Whatever you do, I hope you continue volunteering. As a child, I always appreciated the volunteers at school -- they expanded horizons for kids whose families couldn't afford to travel the world.
Looking back, my experience in OUSD was amazing. The teachers were passionate about their work and sincerely cared about their students -- they had to be, in order to continue teaching in such a difficult environment. They knew that for many of us, a great education would make a great difference in our lives. Many kids come from backgrounds where school is a sanctuary compared to home; many kids (including me) had parents who never had the opportunity to pursue education themselves. There's a great risk that teachers in poor urban schools must think about: that if they fail to instill a sincere appreciation for learning, their students may very well fail to graduate and fail to rise above poverty.
There's no obvious choice in your dilemma. However, unlike many parents, you DO have a choice. Do some research, ask around, and see if you think your child can succeed in either school.
Whatever you do, I hope you continue volunteering. As a child, I always appreciated the volunteers at school -- they expanded horizons for kids whose families couldn't afford to travel the world.
3
My kids have attended and still attend one of these "poor" schools with less than stellar test scores. While it's hard to know how well they would have done at a "better" school, they are testing quite well and our experience, though rocky at times, is one I do not regret at all. What they are getting -- above and beyond -- the academics, is a sense of being in a world where people have different lives. Their friends are wonderful, smart, kind, and funny kids and I am pleased that my kids are more quick to find similarities than differences.
I have been writing a lot about our experiences... Here's one post that might be helpful?
http://integratedschools.org/2015/12/02/why-poor-schools-might-actually-...
I have been writing a lot about our experiences... Here's one post that might be helpful?
http://integratedschools.org/2015/12/02/why-poor-schools-might-actually-...
The choice of school is not a lifetime commitment. Choosing a different district will probably cut into their time, which is already in short supply. This couple can't afford time to help, but they may be able to provide resources (things like computers, books, paper, chalk, etc.) that will help their son's class. It's amazing how much of the materials of routine education are purchased by teachers. The "logic" of budgeting usually predicts that the schools which need the most help are denied that help.
If they believe their son is lacking some critical education after a year (in kindergarten), they can choose to move him and still continue to help the kindergarten teacher.
If they believe their son is lacking some critical education after a year (in kindergarten), they can choose to move him and still continue to help the kindergarten teacher.
Test scores aren't necessarily the best measure if a school. Is it a warm place where students are taught according to their interests and abilities? Do they have arts, music and recess? A library with an actual librarian? Do they treat their students with respect and communicate with parents? I didn't send my daughter to the school with the best test scores. I sent her to our zoned school with the musical theatre program and the trout hatchery (so weird, but pretty awesome) Children and schools are more than a test score.
3
I am truly disappointed by The Ethicist with this column. The parents in Oakland are talking about a school with a population of low income kids of color. The father says that by every standard except test scores, the school seems "perfectly fine." The issue is the state test scores for the school. The advice I would have given is to start asking why, in a perfectly fine school, the test scores might be low? And the answer has more to do with the history of high stakes testing in the U.S. and the ways that schools in low income areas are set up to fail by test score standards. The state tests have been repeatedly discredited by a large number of educators as a poor measure for student learning, yet are touted by politicians and elected officials as a cause for crisis in the US that is the motor behind the big move to privatize education. Testing is Big Business. Read some Diane Ravitch.
1
Our multi-cultural family was exactly in your situation so I'd like to speak from our experience. We made a choice to stay, for a time it worked, and our children are the better for it. They developed a strong sense of self and self-confidence, knew that they were blessed but also that they had a responsibility to respect and appreciate their advantages; and what the lack of those advantages looked like. I am forever in debt to this community for our experience and how it helped shape our children and their values.
It was common lore in our town that if you didn't like the schools you just sent your kids to the plethora of private schools in the area. That just wasn't good enough for many of us and thankfully the town leadership took notice. Many, more affluent members, in our community were equally distressed and as a result our schools partnered with an early adopter district of the Common Core standards. Families stayed and now our former town is something of a magnet for families from surrounding districts.
It was common lore in our town that if you didn't like the schools you just sent your kids to the plethora of private schools in the area. That just wasn't good enough for many of us and thankfully the town leadership took notice. Many, more affluent members, in our community were equally distressed and as a result our schools partnered with an early adopter district of the Common Core standards. Families stayed and now our former town is something of a magnet for families from surrounding districts.
You cannot drop your child into carbonite until the schools reform or the politicians do their jobs to fix schools; you need a quality school RIGHT NOW. Every parent of school age children faces this dilemma, and what they deserve are the options to choose the best education for their child.
3
which creates its own set of issues.
I say former because the exact things that made parents like me stay in K-6th grade completely dropped off the map in middle school and high school. Everything from the more comprehensive report cards (SBA's) to a resurgence in the anti-common core rhetoric and practice. So we left; the change wasn't difficult and our kids were ready for something new. Their education prepared them well for the extra rigor they are experiencing in our new district. Not to be surprised, but to be sure, there IS extra rigor.
From my experience all this talk about the "kind of kids" or the "kind of family" or the lack of good soil from the comments here are a bunch of lame excuses. The kids I knew, that I coached were good kids. Kids who came to realize that the system they were in is not designed for them, for their betterment. It is designed for the flock of $60 - $100K a year hanger-on's who control the higher rungs of public education in less affluent communities. The parents, they're not disinterested, talk to some of them and you learn what they say; "stop complaining, it's good enough."
I say former because the exact things that made parents like me stay in K-6th grade completely dropped off the map in middle school and high school. Everything from the more comprehensive report cards (SBA's) to a resurgence in the anti-common core rhetoric and practice. So we left; the change wasn't difficult and our kids were ready for something new. Their education prepared them well for the extra rigor they are experiencing in our new district. Not to be surprised, but to be sure, there IS extra rigor.
From my experience all this talk about the "kind of kids" or the "kind of family" or the lack of good soil from the comments here are a bunch of lame excuses. The kids I knew, that I coached were good kids. Kids who came to realize that the system they were in is not designed for them, for their betterment. It is designed for the flock of $60 - $100K a year hanger-on's who control the higher rungs of public education in less affluent communities. The parents, they're not disinterested, talk to some of them and you learn what they say; "stop complaining, it's good enough."
The first and third letters have little - if anything - to do with "ethics" -- but rather, they are about guilt and shame --
In fact, the third LW actually ends his letter by asking -
"...how should I wrestle with my guilt?" --
Nowhere in this situation lies a question of ethics - except, of course, the ethical question of stealing petty cash from the safe at your job - which is never addressed...but what the LW really wants is absolution - as opposed to an ethical resolution -
The couple who worry about which school their child should attend also admits -- "We will probably feel lousy no matter what we decide to do." -- and are looking for the Ethicist to provide a way for them to feel less "lousy" with the choice they ultimately make --
As far as the second letter is concerned --
"My brother and I have been supporting our extravagant parents financially since we were in our 20s..."
Somethings missing here - which is --
"My brother and I have CHOSEN TO SUPPORT our extravagant parents financially since we were in our 20s..."
Assisting one's aging parents is a noble and worthwhile endeavor - a recognition of support received and an expression of love...
Bankrolling your parents' extravagant lifestyle is a choice - seemingly born out of some type of family dysfunction - and the distribution of their assets...which they apparently did not earn...seems to be very far away of any discussion regarding ethics --
In fact, the third LW actually ends his letter by asking -
"...how should I wrestle with my guilt?" --
Nowhere in this situation lies a question of ethics - except, of course, the ethical question of stealing petty cash from the safe at your job - which is never addressed...but what the LW really wants is absolution - as opposed to an ethical resolution -
The couple who worry about which school their child should attend also admits -- "We will probably feel lousy no matter what we decide to do." -- and are looking for the Ethicist to provide a way for them to feel less "lousy" with the choice they ultimately make --
As far as the second letter is concerned --
"My brother and I have been supporting our extravagant parents financially since we were in our 20s..."
Somethings missing here - which is --
"My brother and I have CHOSEN TO SUPPORT our extravagant parents financially since we were in our 20s..."
Assisting one's aging parents is a noble and worthwhile endeavor - a recognition of support received and an expression of love...
Bankrolling your parents' extravagant lifestyle is a choice - seemingly born out of some type of family dysfunction - and the distribution of their assets...which they apparently did not earn...seems to be very far away of any discussion regarding ethics --
Hindsight is 20/20. As a parent of two twenty-somethings, I often wish I had selected to send them to a private or even a Catholic school. Hard to know then, but kids are so much more influenced by their peers and outside forces and you do not get a second chance at their education. You want them to be in a environment that reflects your values and is a fit for their strengths. This doesn't mean small classes or accelerated curriculum - look at the whole picture; the socialization, their interaction in the community and the time spent on teaching the kids to know themselves and manage their resources. It will pay dividends for a lifetime - I wish them well. Invest when they are young, it may reap scholarships at the best and lowered anxieties in forging forward for high school and well beyond!
5
RE: the pilfering pal at work. The non-profit where I used to work routinely found excuses for a couple of our worst male employees because they were recovering alcoholics and were unlikely to ever find work if they lost their present jobs. Yet one of them also made improper advances to young women in the office and watch porn on his office computer (until IT found out and locked XXX sites - without notifying HR). And another decided to send Bible quotes out on the all-office email while neglecting his work - which led to several months of missed payments into employee retirement accounts. YEARS of incompetent work and contributions to a negative workforce. Anyone who complained was called racist (the men were black), and/or told that we needed to be more compassionate. Many employees who worked hard and long hours for not much pay or benefits (you know non-profit employees and dedication) felt that the welfare of the many was more important than mercy to the few, and were angry that their concerns were not addressed by HR.
1
I deliberately sent my (white) daughter to a NYC primary school where the test scores were poor partly because I knew hers would still be okay and because I wanted her to start in a school had no tracking and was very diverse--that's the world she would be living in. I have no regrets over 20 years later. Why not try the public school first? You can always move your child if it doesn't work out?
Unfortunately, it is not unusual to encounter parent confusion regarding schools. Most public schools in the U.S. operate on an archaic system developed 150 years ago to accommodate rapid enrollment during the Industrial Revolution. As a result it is not uncommon for there to be a misalignment between needs and operational practices of local schools. Based on research I recently conducted I found significant shifts over time in the purpose of American public schools influenced by wars, economic crises, and perceived global threats. I believe we need to revisit and identify the purpose of our schools. Having clarity on purpose will assist knowing how, when, and where to allocate resources, hopefully leading to a more effective education system. This does not help this parent’s immediate need but could help prevent such dilemmas in the future.
"Failing" public schools are doing so in large measure because they've been thrown under their own buses by parents who claim they "don't have time" to get actively involved in their children's education. It's too bad that the "my-kid-comes-first mentality" Name Withheld seems so ashamed of doesn't extend to the institution that will have the greatest influence--second only to home itself, and sometimes even more so--on "my kid." But of course it's always somebody else's fault.
The pretense that the first letter writer has a "my-kid-comes-first" mentality is already undone by the writer's open admission that just about everything -- career, elderly mom, disabled sibling -- comes before this particular kid. This isn't about poor school vs rich school, private vs public, suburbs vs city, fixing the whole school vs serving your own child first -- it's about bothering to help further your child's education in their current setting by making time to help with homework, hiring a tutor, actually doing something helpful, instead of appealing to the NY Times for validation of your own choice to do otherwise.
To the first question, I and about 200 parents I know personally in NYC have the same dilemma: do we send our child to the failing school next door, do we send him to a charter school, or do we uproot ourselves and move out of the city? Why can't 10 of us get together and send our children to their zoned school and demand that they get an equal quality education as others when we are paying the same in taxes and quality education is a right for all children? Despite our concerns for the bigger picture, no one wants to sacrifice their child's future.
1
A federal report this week put Nevada dead last in public education. How can this be when there are so many good schools and students in the state? Is the report based on public funding? If so, then it is true because Nevade has no state income tax, very low corporate taxes and gives away billions to attract corporations such as Tesla, Apple and startups such as Faraday Future (to build an electric car factory in Las Vegas).
Is because of low wage earned by parents working in casinos, logistics (warehouses), retail and fast foods? Companies moving to Nevada offer an average of $22/hour for their middle tier workers.
Is it because Nevada has one of the highest rate of Mexicans in its population, few immigrants from Asia and many "poor whites"? What is wrong with Nevada schools to end up last, following behind Mississippi in 2015?
Where would you send your kid to school in Nevada...if you had the money and read NYT every day?
Is because of low wage earned by parents working in casinos, logistics (warehouses), retail and fast foods? Companies moving to Nevada offer an average of $22/hour for their middle tier workers.
Is it because Nevada has one of the highest rate of Mexicans in its population, few immigrants from Asia and many "poor whites"? What is wrong with Nevada schools to end up last, following behind Mississippi in 2015?
Where would you send your kid to school in Nevada...if you had the money and read NYT every day?
I have never, ever, considered the "common good", whatever that is, when making decisions about our children. That's insane.
1
The first letter really resonated with my wife and I, who have a kindergartner faced with the Chicago public school system in a region that has mixes of both affluence and poverty within its districts. Looking only at test scores, we might be inclined to feel that something was "seriously wrong" with some of the local public schools too, but for our own first hand experiences with the one he now attends mostly indicating the exact opposite.
While I, like any parent, feel the call to do what's best for my child, I still can't shake the notion that it entails more than simply selecting a school with high aggregate test scores - as if the specters of poverty (violence, inattention, a lack of respect for formal education, etc) as it shows up in schools can forever be safely relegated to "somewhere else". Or as if education is, in and of itself, somehow a process that excludes the dynamics of our own society and the communities we strive to form, or else flee.
My wife and I grew up in the area we now raise our family in - a deliberate choice - and the options for education now are diminished from what they were then, or rather, more disparate - more starkly contrasted along demographic lines of race and income. It's hard to miss the fact that a process of flight and gentrification is behind that change - and it leads me to wonder just what the net gain is once short-term advantage is held up against the obvious long-term net degradation of the American social fabric.
While I, like any parent, feel the call to do what's best for my child, I still can't shake the notion that it entails more than simply selecting a school with high aggregate test scores - as if the specters of poverty (violence, inattention, a lack of respect for formal education, etc) as it shows up in schools can forever be safely relegated to "somewhere else". Or as if education is, in and of itself, somehow a process that excludes the dynamics of our own society and the communities we strive to form, or else flee.
My wife and I grew up in the area we now raise our family in - a deliberate choice - and the options for education now are diminished from what they were then, or rather, more disparate - more starkly contrasted along demographic lines of race and income. It's hard to miss the fact that a process of flight and gentrification is behind that change - and it leads me to wonder just what the net gain is once short-term advantage is held up against the obvious long-term net degradation of the American social fabric.
As to the second case study. I don't quite see why the employee's loyalties should be with her boss and not her "friend" as she calls him (but perhaps not considered him so). Why would she be fired in the first place? Tipping off her "friend" on the camera may have been sufficient to put a stop to the thefts. Why the secrecy? Why could s/he not have just mention it as any other change in the workplace environment? ("We now have cameras around..."). There seems to be something disingenuous in the telling of the story or the memory. No wonder the guilt.
If you are truly concerned about your "homeless" friend, invite him to move in for a while. Just make sure to nail everything down.
Now that you've rejected that, recognize that you didn't do anything wrong. Unless it was you who was stealing and changed up when the cameras came in.
Now that you've rejected that, recognize that you didn't do anything wrong. Unless it was you who was stealing and changed up when the cameras came in.
The concern you have with the public school is that there might be bad teachers there. I went to a public school in a not great town, and while there were teachers who cared and tried, a substantial minority (approximately 1/3) were terrible.
The one consolation is that the educational system is so outdated that it didn't hurt me much - much of the most important learning happens outside public schools these days because schools focus so much on useless memorization and ignore technology (basic programming should be a graduation requirement). The only things that really matter in high school are writing and math, and most schools still have AP Calculus and English.
High performing schools put so much stress on kids and I'm not sure it's really worth it because so much of it is useless. Ask any high performing student and they'll say that they worked less hard but learned more in college.
So in short, the downside is you'll end up with worse teachers. The upside is your kids will have a bit more free time and may be able to use that more productively than they would caught in the cycle of achievement, sleep deprived superkids in the high performing schools, and that in the end as long as they get to a good school it won't matter. If you keep them in the low performing school, use the extra money and time to enroll them in a programming class, a language class, or a history class that doesn't rely on a 500 page textbook full of facts to memorize. They'll learn more.
The one consolation is that the educational system is so outdated that it didn't hurt me much - much of the most important learning happens outside public schools these days because schools focus so much on useless memorization and ignore technology (basic programming should be a graduation requirement). The only things that really matter in high school are writing and math, and most schools still have AP Calculus and English.
High performing schools put so much stress on kids and I'm not sure it's really worth it because so much of it is useless. Ask any high performing student and they'll say that they worked less hard but learned more in college.
So in short, the downside is you'll end up with worse teachers. The upside is your kids will have a bit more free time and may be able to use that more productively than they would caught in the cycle of achievement, sleep deprived superkids in the high performing schools, and that in the end as long as they get to a good school it won't matter. If you keep them in the low performing school, use the extra money and time to enroll them in a programming class, a language class, or a history class that doesn't rely on a 500 page textbook full of facts to memorize. They'll learn more.
First letter: Your priority is to the child you brought into this world, so you should send him to the best school you can afford. Even with a limited amount of free time you or your wife can if desired contribute to the community in a variety of other ways but don't use your child to meet that responsibility.
Second letter: I empathize with you as I think it is parents who should take care of their children not the reverse. If you're angry it's appropriate. I think it would be fair if you used the jewelry to pay for your parent's jewelry to pay for their personal expenses which you are now doing out of your own pockets. I also would not continue to overly indulge them so that the money lasts longer. It is understood that charitable funds do not adequately cover personal expenses and people are are entitled to those especially in old age, even if they haven't lived frugally. Depriving them of those even if they're not deserving is not worth the guilt you would later feel.
Third Letter: Guilt is a worthless emotion. Unless it changes one's future behavior. Why don't you offer your friend help in finding a job? And send him to AA.
Second letter: I empathize with you as I think it is parents who should take care of their children not the reverse. If you're angry it's appropriate. I think it would be fair if you used the jewelry to pay for your parent's jewelry to pay for their personal expenses which you are now doing out of your own pockets. I also would not continue to overly indulge them so that the money lasts longer. It is understood that charitable funds do not adequately cover personal expenses and people are are entitled to those especially in old age, even if they haven't lived frugally. Depriving them of those even if they're not deserving is not worth the guilt you would later feel.
Third Letter: Guilt is a worthless emotion. Unless it changes one's future behavior. Why don't you offer your friend help in finding a job? And send him to AA.
Anyone who is lucky enough to have a choice, should spend a good couple of hours touring each eligible school and considering which is the best 'fit' for their child. Different kids need different things and test scores are just one part of the picture.
The focus on test scores is, btw, the main reason I have pulled my kid out of public education altogether and put her in a school that actually lets teachers teach. If that is selfish of me, then so be it.
The focus on test scores is, btw, the main reason I have pulled my kid out of public education altogether and put her in a school that actually lets teachers teach. If that is selfish of me, then so be it.
1
If your priority is test scores, by all means, go to where the scores are highest. But scores say little about the education.
We live in an urban inner city area with a "poor scoring school" (though it's among the best in our very large and very poor district. It has required intensive effort by parents and community (most of whom also work full time jobs) working in cooperation with the administration to enhance the district's offerings. Test scores continue to improve over the years, but those higher achieving kids score well regardless. The scores don't reflect much about the quality of the school, they show how well certain kids take tests.
We live in an urban inner city area with a "poor scoring school" (though it's among the best in our very large and very poor district. It has required intensive effort by parents and community (most of whom also work full time jobs) working in cooperation with the administration to enhance the district's offerings. Test scores continue to improve over the years, but those higher achieving kids score well regardless. The scores don't reflect much about the quality of the school, they show how well certain kids take tests.
With regard to the Oakland parents: as many of the other comments infer, your highest responsibility is to your child. If you are able to relocate to a better school district, you should do it.
The issues you write about in the Oakland school district run much deeper than you are describing - claiming there is "something seriously wrong with how the school is educating the kids" doesn't begin to explain the greater infrastructure problems within the city of Oakland. Your efforts to help the school, while sweet, are nowhere near what would be required to truly turn the school around. As a native of SF, I think many people forget that, until fairly recently, Oakland had one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. While crime and violent crime are certainly on the downtrend in Oakland (helped in part by a robust Bay Area economy and new East Bay residents, which I am guessing the writers might be), by no means is it eradicated. Not to oversimplify the underlying issues in the Oakland school district, but city infrastructure plays a huge role in the schools. It is too important to provide your child the best possible start to his education - something I remain forever grateful my own parents (one of whom is first generation college graduate) recognized and worked to give my sister and I. As Appiah writes, there's no recognizably human world where parents value other children the same as their own.
The issues you write about in the Oakland school district run much deeper than you are describing - claiming there is "something seriously wrong with how the school is educating the kids" doesn't begin to explain the greater infrastructure problems within the city of Oakland. Your efforts to help the school, while sweet, are nowhere near what would be required to truly turn the school around. As a native of SF, I think many people forget that, until fairly recently, Oakland had one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. While crime and violent crime are certainly on the downtrend in Oakland (helped in part by a robust Bay Area economy and new East Bay residents, which I am guessing the writers might be), by no means is it eradicated. Not to oversimplify the underlying issues in the Oakland school district, but city infrastructure plays a huge role in the schools. It is too important to provide your child the best possible start to his education - something I remain forever grateful my own parents (one of whom is first generation college graduate) recognized and worked to give my sister and I. As Appiah writes, there's no recognizably human world where parents value other children the same as their own.
2
The parents do not have an ethical obligation to place their child in one school or another, but they do have an ethical obligation to make such a life-altering decision with a minimum amount of critical thought. Judging a school by a single number (average test score) tells you very little. Score distribution, school leadership, teacher turnover, and fellow parent experiences are some of the other factors. The real question is whether or not the school will allow the child to learn. If, for example, there is one cluster of high test scores and a larger group of low scores, a case can be made that this is a good or great school that may serve a large number of under-prepared students. Staying may be better. If all the scores are low or there is constant faculty turnover, either of these may be a reason to leave. If this couple wants to put their own college-level educations to good use, critically thinking beyond one number is a good place to start.
My wife and I are also first generation college grads, and we firmly believe in the public school system. The public school system where we lived and had our baby was just terrible (a corner of Yonkers, NY). We saw our obligation to be to our child, and went back and forth about living in that coop and sending her to private school, or, going with our faith in the benefits of a public school system, moving into a neighborhood with better schools. We moved. Our child comes first.
1
When conservatives flee blighted urban school districts, they are demonstrably racist segregationists. When liberals do it, they are good parents sacrificing themselves for their children.
Thank you for publishing this tortured rationalization.
Thank you for publishing this tortured rationalization.
7
Here's my answer to the questions about schools. No, you don't have to send your child to school at all. Mostly, please don't judge the quality of your child's school by test scores. 84-99% of student performance on standardized tests has nothing to do with the school. So, don't worry about saving your child's school. Save your neighborhood. Make sure everyone has access to healthcare, healthy food, safety, security, love and belonging. Make sure they have a stimulating, stable home environment. If you do that, I guarantee the test scores will rise.
If you want to judge your child's school, ask how well the staff knows and values each child as an individual. How much do the students love going to that school because they are engaged, happy and feel a sense of community? Do kids feel as if they matter and can make a difference in the world around them? Do they feel they are improving every day in whatever skills they are working on, especially the ones that are most important to them? Do they have a choice in what and how they learn? Do they get a chance to work from their strengths, rather than forced to do meaningless drill on things that are difficult for them and they don't care about?
Standardized test scores mostly measure socio-economic status, not learning. They should be used, if at all, as only a part of how you judge your kids' school.
If you want to judge your child's school, ask how well the staff knows and values each child as an individual. How much do the students love going to that school because they are engaged, happy and feel a sense of community? Do kids feel as if they matter and can make a difference in the world around them? Do they feel they are improving every day in whatever skills they are working on, especially the ones that are most important to them? Do they have a choice in what and how they learn? Do they get a chance to work from their strengths, rather than forced to do meaningless drill on things that are difficult for them and they don't care about?
Standardized test scores mostly measure socio-economic status, not learning. They should be used, if at all, as only a part of how you judge your kids' school.
I find it kind of interesting that the school quandary question makes no reference to the alternative, other than "a higher-testing public school in a richer part of the city." You can do that? No wonder schools deteriorate. Public Schooling has become the "Parent with the Longest Neck," in which any sense of community has long ago dropped out, and is more a reflection of elitism and profiteering than anything else. I found it interesting that Mayor Emanuel closed the library in the public school on his block. No problem, his children go to a private school paid for by public monies. Governor Coumo in New York State supports charter schools, where it is a growth industry with considerable profit, since public schools are often required to provide the space. What's wrong with the public school mentioned in this article is what is wrong with public education, when it comes to serving the poor. Funding for public schools should come from one pot and be equally distributed by pupil. We wouldn't be witnessing the deterioration that we are witnessing to day that pits parent against parent, if it was not for the inequality in funding. Then there is the deeper problem that things are the way they are because many Americans simply do not value education and are easy pickings for this kind of sham.
3
We moved to Weston, CT.
The #2 rated public school district in the country.
To afford to live here, we eat a lot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Everyone makes choices when it involves their children.
The #2 rated public school district in the country.
To afford to live here, we eat a lot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Everyone makes choices when it involves their children.
@school kid
It is a calculated risk, but it is better to be the top kid at a bad school than an average kid at a top school.
As the top kid at a bad school, you get all the benefits of affirmative action, special programs targeting such kids, and a whole lot less competition. For instance, if UCLA or Berkeley automatically accepts the top 10% of each school, no matter how bad, your kid would be a shoo-in.
As an average kid at a top school, you are competing with other similarly situated kids (in terms of profile, intellect, income, social background) for very limited resources.
Alas, the risks are considerable. If you kid gets involved in the bad elements of a bad school, things could go bad very very badly indeed.
It is a calculated risk, but it is better to be the top kid at a bad school than an average kid at a top school.
As the top kid at a bad school, you get all the benefits of affirmative action, special programs targeting such kids, and a whole lot less competition. For instance, if UCLA or Berkeley automatically accepts the top 10% of each school, no matter how bad, your kid would be a shoo-in.
As an average kid at a top school, you are competing with other similarly situated kids (in terms of profile, intellect, income, social background) for very limited resources.
Alas, the risks are considerable. If you kid gets involved in the bad elements of a bad school, things could go bad very very badly indeed.
2
The funding of public schools in America is linked to neighborhood real estate values . Poor neighborhood equals poor schools. Equal per capita funding of all public schools would bring good teachers to bad neighborhoods. This is not socialism but ,rather, social democracy at it's best. Eventually, the economic standing of poor neighborhoods would improve because people and companies concerned about public good education would move there.Yes, under this plan wealthy neighborhoods might see a reduction in school funding . If this is unacceptable , these parents can afford private schools. The gears of the meritocracy elevator need to be greased by the entire nation. We are all in this together.
The worst achieving school district in my state has the highest per capita expenditure per capita for students. Believe me, it is not because teachers are paid a princely sum. Money is not everything...
An important note on education: a school's test scores alone reveal almost nothing useful about that school or how well it will educate an individual child. More than anything, the test scores simply reveal that kids from poorer families tend to come to school with fewer cognitive resources than kids from wealthier homes. Having taught in poor urban schools for over a decade, I can tell you that a far more important consideration is the school's rate of behavior problems. Since he and his wife volunteer in the neighborhood school, the concerned parent who authored the first question is in a unique position to know this information. If classroom disruptions and other behavior problems are relatively rare at the neighborhood school, their child will likely be as well educated there as he would if they bused him to a school in a more affluent part of town. If behavior problems are common, then they should put their child in the other school without giving it another thought.
1
One reason among many I choose to never raise children in America-- when local property taxes fund public education, the clear outcome will always be worsening inequality as people will self-segregate no matter how progressive they are. So many of my friends struggle financially feeling forced to spend 20K a year on private school (or spend another 100K on housing costs in the right neighborhood).
When my child was growing up we lived in a run down but decent neighborhood with a very large population of "legal" Asian immigrants. We got along very well with our Vietnamese and Spanish neighbors, but much of the communication was accomplished through sign language or having the children translate.
Like my grandfather, an immigrant with a grade school education who had to drop out of school to help take care of twelve younger siblings, I read to my child and taught him a great deal before kindergarten. His kindergarten teacher told me outright that he was doing very well because he'd received so much positive attention at home, but that she had little time for him because the other children, whose parents didn't really speak English needed her attention "more" just to make up lost ground,
I asked to have him transferred to a district where more of his classmates would be native English speakers. The administrators were exceedingly rude to me when they turned me down. One actually said "your child will have to interact with children of other races here too you know" suggesting that I was a racist. Nothing I said could convince her otherwise. In fact she was the bigoted one, judging me according to her own biases.
In the end we did without a great deal in order to do what was right for my child. I grew up working class so I understood how important school is. My son deserved better than being last in the queue for the teachers attention.
Like my grandfather, an immigrant with a grade school education who had to drop out of school to help take care of twelve younger siblings, I read to my child and taught him a great deal before kindergarten. His kindergarten teacher told me outright that he was doing very well because he'd received so much positive attention at home, but that she had little time for him because the other children, whose parents didn't really speak English needed her attention "more" just to make up lost ground,
I asked to have him transferred to a district where more of his classmates would be native English speakers. The administrators were exceedingly rude to me when they turned me down. One actually said "your child will have to interact with children of other races here too you know" suggesting that I was a racist. Nothing I said could convince her otherwise. In fact she was the bigoted one, judging me according to her own biases.
In the end we did without a great deal in order to do what was right for my child. I grew up working class so I understood how important school is. My son deserved better than being last in the queue for the teachers attention.
2
Seems to me that the elephant in the room is that many public schools are performing below standards. One might ask why.
I note this: as a man (with a wife) who has no children by choice, I find it interesting (polite word) that when I speak (criticize) public schools, eventually I am "outed" as having no children. At that point, there is nothing I can say about public schools because I have no dog in the hunt, so to speak. Yet, I have been know to speak out, to ask some hard questions of superintendents and, in particular, education board members. As I say, though, I get no where.
So what is one to do when someone who does consider it his ethical obligation to demand that public schools teach children properly (but obviously, I have no idea what that should be, do I, because I do not have a child so I could not possibly know what a child needs in terms of an education, no), yet those who public education ought be rather important find "good reason" to not be concerned, or at least, be concerned enough to just go to another school?
Yes, perhaps that's a bit harsh; people's circumstances do dictate, yet underperforming public schools will remain so unless people - apparently ONLY parents - speak out.
I suppose I should just sit back and watch the circus.
I note this: as a man (with a wife) who has no children by choice, I find it interesting (polite word) that when I speak (criticize) public schools, eventually I am "outed" as having no children. At that point, there is nothing I can say about public schools because I have no dog in the hunt, so to speak. Yet, I have been know to speak out, to ask some hard questions of superintendents and, in particular, education board members. As I say, though, I get no where.
So what is one to do when someone who does consider it his ethical obligation to demand that public schools teach children properly (but obviously, I have no idea what that should be, do I, because I do not have a child so I could not possibly know what a child needs in terms of an education, no), yet those who public education ought be rather important find "good reason" to not be concerned, or at least, be concerned enough to just go to another school?
Yes, perhaps that's a bit harsh; people's circumstances do dictate, yet underperforming public schools will remain so unless people - apparently ONLY parents - speak out.
I suppose I should just sit back and watch the circus.
Ask Barack and Michelle Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton what they would do.
Concerning the friend who was caught stealing two twenties (and may have been the person who previously had been stealing money) I can add something to support your recommendation of clemency for the person who did not warn him.
Over a generation ago I worked in security at a large business. The contractor providing clean-up crews at night specialized in hiring people on probation from crimes, especially if they had family. I told them that there were very good microphones that would track exactly where they were, and also to keep out of a small area of the office (which the office workers cleaned during the day). A few of them went there, stole, and got caught both by the microphones and by a camera I had not mentioned. The microphones were mainly to alert us to look at the videotape. Mentioning the camera might not have deterred them either - some people are sure they will beat the system and will steal anyway, some people seem to want to be caught and punished.
Over a generation ago I worked in security at a large business. The contractor providing clean-up crews at night specialized in hiring people on probation from crimes, especially if they had family. I told them that there were very good microphones that would track exactly where they were, and also to keep out of a small area of the office (which the office workers cleaned during the day). A few of them went there, stole, and got caught both by the microphones and by a camera I had not mentioned. The microphones were mainly to alert us to look at the videotape. Mentioning the camera might not have deterred them either - some people are sure they will beat the system and will steal anyway, some people seem to want to be caught and punished.
I don't see the "serious ethical quandary" for the first letter writer. They owe it to their son to give him the best educational opportunity they can by sending him to the best school available. Adults are entitled to make sacrifices for their conception of the greater good, but they should not impose those sacrifices on their children.
1
Re: Question 3:
I blame the boss. If the boss announced that security cameras were put in place, and why, it would probably stopped the thief before he stole again. Instead, the boss kept mum about the cameras, and the thief was not as observant as the LW, so the thief got caught. Obviously, the boss cared more about catching the thief than stopping the theft and preserving his work force. There was nothing the LW could have done without getting fired himself.
I blame the boss. If the boss announced that security cameras were put in place, and why, it would probably stopped the thief before he stole again. Instead, the boss kept mum about the cameras, and the thief was not as observant as the LW, so the thief got caught. Obviously, the boss cared more about catching the thief than stopping the theft and preserving his work force. There was nothing the LW could have done without getting fired himself.
You have a strong sense of civic responsibility, which is admirable. That said, in my opinion, the best thing you can do for your community and for your country is to give your child the best possible upbringing. Find the best possible school for your son and help others to do the same.
I live in rural northern Alabama and sent my two daughters to the local public schools. I was the child of a member of the armed forces and attended 10 schools with 12 changes from 1st to 12th grades. I had all sorts of experiences with the quality of schools from a tiny school on a mountain in Alabama to a military dependant school in England. What I learned is that what my parents did to prepare me and encourage me was more important than the school I attended. I left Alabama once in 8th grade to attend a large well funded school in Niagara County, New York. It was a very good school and I found that I was ahead of even the most gifted students in academics. So when my two daughters started school two years apart meeting with their teachers and supporting them was my first task. I had made learning fun for my children and taught them the importance of enjoying your learning more than focusing on grades and achievements. They responded with making school a challenge to help them learn and enjoy the world. Along the way they learned all they needed to earn admission to selective universities. One was her class valedictorian and the other was among the top 10 students in her class. Both became talented mathematics students with a love for language and the humanities. One had a first grade teacher who was a master teacher who arranged for an astronaut with the Shuttle Program to visit her class. Ethical problem? None.
1
Low test scores in a poor neighborhood reflect the effects of poverty. Kids from families like yours do well because of what you provide them. Also, in poor neighborhoods, the best kids more and more get creamed off by charter and private schools, leaving public schools with a harder job. Go meet the principal, visit a classroom, think about how you could donate and get active in the PTA. The richer school's curriculum may not be any better, the kids would test well anyway.mI'm a white woman who went to public school with many poor children of color, and it shaped my values, ability to get along with people different from me, and racial attitudes that my sister who went to private school missed out on.
I'll second others' comment that the main factor in your, or any child's, academic performance is the family. It's not the school. The poor kids at your neighborhood school may get no home support in learning discipline, doing homework, getting enough rest and food. Even the best school and teachers can't fix it when the kid shows up unprepared for and unfocused on school.
If the school is safe, your son can get a good education there if you support him.
If the school is safe, your son can get a good education there if you support him.
Isn't it well-established that the lower marks for schools with a high proportion of kids who are lower on the socioeconomic ladder and/or English language learners has almost everything to do with their home environment, either because their parents don't have the experience of navigating the system / knowledge of English / enough free time and money / a solid education of their own? My entire K - 12 education was at these so-called "bad public schools" and I'm exactly as successful and well-educated as any of my peers from university who went to elite suburban or expensive private schools. There is no harm in allowing your kid to make friends across socioeconomic and cultural groups. The fact of the matter is, they probably won't really do that anyway, since unfortunately the kids are likely to self-segregate once they get to junior high or so. But at least in a more diverse environment your kid will be exposed to a wider cross-section of your own community, which can only be a good thing, not only in terms of building community but also for life preparation for your own child. Do you want your kid to see the janitor at her future office as a person or as part of the furniture? (And just a side note to counter a stereotype: anecdotally from my university experience, the kids who went to the private schools and the wealthy elite public schools were the ones who had already done alllll the drugs.)
1
You need to send your child to the best possible school. While demographics are likely a factor in your neighborhood school's performance, it is also true that the best teachers and administrators flee schools like yours for those that have better demographics as well.
You can continue to volunteer and help your local school. It is not your child's responsibility to fix a broken school.
You can continue to volunteer and help your local school. It is not your child's responsibility to fix a broken school.
Blaming the school, and especially the teachers, for poor test scores is not helpful and probably wrong. The correlation between poverty and low scores usually reflects the underlying catalyst for poor performance in school. The first question these parents should ask is whether their child will be physically safe at school. After that, they should assess the culture and atmosphere of the school by spending some time there, in the halls and classrooms. They are not obligated to sacrifice a good and safe educational environment for their child to make an ideological point. But they should also realize that poor test scores don't usually mean bad teachers--there are many other factors that determine whether a school is suitable for a particular child.
To the first letter-writer: I would seriously dispute that a "my kid comes first" mentality is what creates bad schools. The vast majority of parents look out for their kids above all others; I seriously doubt that there's any pattern in that mentality that you'd be able to correlate to where good vs. bad public schools are. Much larger factors include the history of residential segregation, poverty, the disparate funding of school districts through property taxes, issues with teacher education and training, state laws regarding curriculum and testing, etc. etc.
Spoiler alert: Whether or not your kid is in school there will not be what turns this school around or fails to.
Although... you might also do some deeper checking into why the school scored poorly. There may be technicalities in the scoring dragging down the assessment of a basically good school. Can you talk to teachers or the principal about their interpretation of the school's performance and see if what they know changes your feelings?
Spoiler alert: Whether or not your kid is in school there will not be what turns this school around or fails to.
Although... you might also do some deeper checking into why the school scored poorly. There may be technicalities in the scoring dragging down the assessment of a basically good school. Can you talk to teachers or the principal about their interpretation of the school's performance and see if what they know changes your feelings?
It is entirely appropriate for parents to want their children to get the best education possible. There is no moral obligation to send them to schools that are known to be "bad" or "dangerous" or "underperforming."
Most immigrants came to the US to improve themselves, which often meant making personal sacrifices so their children could lead better lives. This value is held not just by immigrants, but those whose families have been in the US for several or many generations.
A highly educated friend in L.A. could afford private school. But, for "ethical" reasons he decided to send his children to a local public school, known to be "bad," in order to expose them to diversity and and to people of a different socio-economic status. His children (white) were regularly robbed of their lunch money, bullied and sometimes even assaulted by the majority students (black and Hispanic). Over a period of years the children developed pronounced psychological problems that did not respond to counseling and therapy: fear of minorities, and anger at/hatred of their parents. Further, the children, who were very bright and did well in lower school before being forced to attend a "bad" school, were ill-prepared for and did poorly in the average colleges they were able to get into.
Sending children to a school that is known to be "bad" is not doing them a favor or helping them; it can be seen as curtailing their future opportunities at best, or even harming or endangering them at worst.
Most immigrants came to the US to improve themselves, which often meant making personal sacrifices so their children could lead better lives. This value is held not just by immigrants, but those whose families have been in the US for several or many generations.
A highly educated friend in L.A. could afford private school. But, for "ethical" reasons he decided to send his children to a local public school, known to be "bad," in order to expose them to diversity and and to people of a different socio-economic status. His children (white) were regularly robbed of their lunch money, bullied and sometimes even assaulted by the majority students (black and Hispanic). Over a period of years the children developed pronounced psychological problems that did not respond to counseling and therapy: fear of minorities, and anger at/hatred of their parents. Further, the children, who were very bright and did well in lower school before being forced to attend a "bad" school, were ill-prepared for and did poorly in the average colleges they were able to get into.
Sending children to a school that is known to be "bad" is not doing them a favor or helping them; it can be seen as curtailing their future opportunities at best, or even harming or endangering them at worst.
1
As someone who recently bought a home where we had to choose a good school district where our children would go, we discovered that school test scores are directly correlated to one variable only, the number of children in the school district on free/reduced price meals which is a proxy for poverty. It has nothing to do with the quality or salaries of the teachers, resources available to the school or anything else. If a lot of poor people live in a district, there will also be a lot of single mother headed households and poor test scores. Whether your children go to good schools or bad, it only depends on your home environment how well or badly they will do. As someone who went to bad schools in a third world country all my childhood, I can say that you learn more things that really matter in a bad school than a good school. In a good school you may learn the three R's, in a bad school you learn how to deal with life when it gives you lemons. While I would not trade my childhood for anything else, I don't want to take any chances with my children's, though I realize that by keeping them in a cocoon I am depriving them of something valuable.
Even if you enrolled your child in the failed public school in your neighborhood AND gave all your time to improving the school, it would not create a first-rate school during the years he would be attending. And I also hate to say it, but my experience as both a former teacher and a parent is that your attempts at an involvement at any serious level would be looked on as meddling by many employees of the school.
1
I'd do some serious research online to see why test scores are low. If a large number of the students are not native English speakers, they may be intelligent, but test poorly due to not understanding the questions. Go on school tours - see how the teachers teach - don't all parents do school tours these days, especially when there's a choice of schools? Then contact class parents, which can be found online or through the school, and ask them if they can speak candidly to you on the phone. Clearly, some students are the school are doing well. Yours will probably be one of them, in which case, there's little need to worry. And, it's just kindergarten. If after one year you don't like it, then you can very easily switch.
I thought that was a very wishy washy answer from the ethicist on the first question, regarding the school. Actually, in my opinion, it was no answer.
Obviously these are committed people who have already shown their commitment by living in the neighborhood in which they live and volunteering at the local school even though their child wasn't yet a student there. But I don't think they need to sacrifice their child to further prove their commitment to public education.
I suppose one thing they might do is go to the school principal and ask why the students' test results are so low. I suppose there might be a plausible reason,though I am having trouble thinking what it might be.
Otherwise, I suggest they go ahead and get their kid in another school, however that is handled in Oakland. If it can be done without moving, then great. If they have to move, then look at that. If they can't afford to move, or don't want to, then consider checking out a good private school and applying for a scholarship.
Obviously these are committed people who have already shown their commitment by living in the neighborhood in which they live and volunteering at the local school even though their child wasn't yet a student there. But I don't think they need to sacrifice their child to further prove their commitment to public education.
I suppose one thing they might do is go to the school principal and ask why the students' test results are so low. I suppose there might be a plausible reason,though I am having trouble thinking what it might be.
Otherwise, I suggest they go ahead and get their kid in another school, however that is handled in Oakland. If it can be done without moving, then great. If they have to move, then look at that. If they can't afford to move, or don't want to, then consider checking out a good private school and applying for a scholarship.
All those people who grew up in cities in the '70s and 80's, who were force-bused to the worst schools in the city while the great school in their neighborhood sat nearby, inaccessible to them, would be astonished to see the response to first letter.
1
As many other commenters have pointed out already, low test scores don't mean a school is bad. Low scores mean that the kids who go to the school come from low-income families. Poverty creates so many issues that affect kids' learning; it often goes with poor maternal, infant, and child health care; substandard nutrition; stress; parents who don't know or have time to do the things that higher-income, educated parents do: talking a lot to their young kids, reading to them, exposing them to different, new experiences. My son went to an elementary school that's 75% free/reduced lunch. I was active in the school, volunteering and making sure that my son's needs as a quick learner were being met. He learned plenty, did well, and is a better, kinder kid because of the diversity of races, socioeconomic classes, and ability levels he encountered at his school.
1
Re: the school dilemma, do you think that other parents of children in the failing school would hesitate to send their kid to a better school if they could? I live in an area with terrible public schools, and charter schools have moved in to fill the gap. Parents rail against the charters for creating segregation UNTIL their kid gets a coveted spot in a charter school. I don't think anyone has ever turned down a spot. I think it's fair to say that everyone is going to do what's best for their child, so that levels the moral playing field.
1
My husband and I are also first generation college educated (he a physician, I a Ph.D). When it came time to educate our sons we decided against public school education and carefully investigated the best private education we could get, regardless of cost. We decided to do with less so that they could get more. I never gave any thought to other children in the neighborhood or the decisions their parents had made regarding their education. We did encourage forging bonding friendships in our neighborhood. It all worked out fine: one son is now a physician (in residency), the other is an investment banker. Put your children and their education (both academic and spiritual) first; you do not get a second chance. Frankly, I have not lost a moment of sleep over our decisions. In order to bolster the public school system for those who cannot (or do not wish to) pay for what we have done, I volunteer as a tutor in a reading program. Best wishes in cultivating the precious resources of which you have stewardship. Your time is not long -- make every day count.
3
I find it alarming that the writer posits (and the columnist accepts) that test scores tell more about a school than his own experiences volunteering there. (Particularly since California schools have not been given test scores for the last two years, and the scores this year fell statewide due to the new tests.) Test scores closely correlate with income, so the school's (limited) results aren't a surprise.
I also wonder why the writer feels that the school needs to be "turned around", given that his volunteer experience was apparently positive. Talking to some of the families at the school might provide a great deal of insight - not only into the school's strengths and needs, but into the writer's own biases that push him to regard his own experiences at the school.
I also wonder why the writer feels that the school needs to be "turned around", given that his volunteer experience was apparently positive. Talking to some of the families at the school might provide a great deal of insight - not only into the school's strengths and needs, but into the writer's own biases that push him to regard his own experiences at the school.
1
Here's the simple and ugly truth: Follow the money. Schools that thrive do so because their students come from advantaged homes that give them every opportunity to succeed: educational vacations, private tutors, enriching experiences such as piano and ballet lessons, etc. Poor urban schools suffer from having children of disadvantaged homes that do not/can not give their children similar enriching opportunities. Case in point: Take two school districts a half-hour apart: Scarsdale and the South Bronx. Why is one school flourishing and the other drowning? Scarsdale has better teachers? No! In fact, the South Bronx needs incredibly extraordinary teachers to compensate for cultural poverty while Scarsdale students will flourish even with mediocre teachers. That's not to say Scarsdale has mediocre teachers - it simply means that Scarsdale teachers receive the benefit of having students with enormous educational and cultural advantages. Children of poverty often lack the most fundamental essentials to succeed, such as a decent bed to sleep in, a diet not laden with sugars and cheap carbs and fats. Go into an upscale elementary school during snack time. You'll see organic carrots, whole grain crackers, peanut butter where the only ingredient is peanuts. The impact of food on brain development is just one more factor that separates advantaged from disadvantaged students. Bottom line: A school district is as successful as the advantages its students receive from their parents.
1
Thank you, dear writers responding to the inquiry regarding test scores and schools. What so few people actually understand about public schools is this; test scores do not reflect actual learning in the classroom.
The testing is rigged and schools without proper resources and funding tank. Why? Because we need "failing" schools to prop up the justification of richer communities having higher taxes because their schools (and by default assumption communities) are better.
I've seen rich district start test prep in September and do it daily as skill and drill. Most urban districts give the kids only 2 months of cramming after school test prep. Poor schools do not have enough staff or support for students who need additional aid like one on one in class instruction, which helps.
My advice would have been to talk to the teachers, principal and your neighbors and get a feed on what is truly going on there.
If you really want an excellent education for your child they will get it if you stay engaged and demand they strive for their best. Tests, teachers and schools do not create a successful child. Involved parents that have expectations for that child that are clear and consistent will have better outcomes overall.
My family stressed education as the key to success. I went to mediocre urban schools but I always took AP classes. My teachers pushed me to succeed. I attended a failing H.S. but I got a good education because I wanted it.
The testing is rigged and schools without proper resources and funding tank. Why? Because we need "failing" schools to prop up the justification of richer communities having higher taxes because their schools (and by default assumption communities) are better.
I've seen rich district start test prep in September and do it daily as skill and drill. Most urban districts give the kids only 2 months of cramming after school test prep. Poor schools do not have enough staff or support for students who need additional aid like one on one in class instruction, which helps.
My advice would have been to talk to the teachers, principal and your neighbors and get a feed on what is truly going on there.
If you really want an excellent education for your child they will get it if you stay engaged and demand they strive for their best. Tests, teachers and schools do not create a successful child. Involved parents that have expectations for that child that are clear and consistent will have better outcomes overall.
My family stressed education as the key to success. I went to mediocre urban schools but I always took AP classes. My teachers pushed me to succeed. I attended a failing H.S. but I got a good education because I wanted it.
20
If the only thing bothering the parents about the school is the low test scores, then that isn't a reason not to send their kid there. Some of the more creative, interesting schools simply don't drill the kids to death in testing.
8
Do as Obama does. He (Like Hillary Clinton) wanted to force everyone in the whole country into socialized medicine but won't even send his kid to public school. They go to private school.
15
Jimmy Carter sent his daughter to public school while he was president. Have you read about the problems it created for the school and secret service? The school would be better served had his daughter not attend it.
Sure, you're talking about two very rich people. Most rich people send their kids to private school, because they're rich and have that choice. Also be mindful of the security challenges and disruption in a public school if the president's kids were attending. I have a feeling that the transport of the Obama girls to school each day involves some kind of guarded motorcade along with heavy security presence in the building.
"You suggest that a my-kids-come-first mentality is what creates problem schools. But doesn’t it also make for some of the best schools?"
This is supposed to pass for some kind of sophisticated ethical reasoning?
This is supposed to pass for some kind of sophisticated ethical reasoning?
10
What is the referent of the claim that a "my-kids-come-first-mentality" has helped create "some of the best schools"? We can't be talking about public schools, which are not shaped/created by this discount "rationality" of choice. The questioners are scrupulously weighing one public school against another. Your slipshod reassurance is unworthy of their carefully constructed question.
5
Your child can come first AND you can send your child to a school where every student isn't high achieving and (most likely) middle class or affluent.
The writer's only complaint with the school was the test scores. He trusted those more than his own lying eyes when he volunteered there. As long as a school is safe, and the teachers caring and good, most students learn everything they need to learn in elementary school. There are schools that will teach your child how to perform well on a standardized test and not much about being a caring, sympathetic person. Guess which learning will be more valuable?
The writer's only complaint with the school was the test scores. He trusted those more than his own lying eyes when he volunteered there. As long as a school is safe, and the teachers caring and good, most students learn everything they need to learn in elementary school. There are schools that will teach your child how to perform well on a standardized test and not much about being a caring, sympathetic person. Guess which learning will be more valuable?
7
"There are schools that will teach your child how to perform well on a standardized test and not much about being a caring, sympathetic person. Guess which learning will be more valuable?"
My parents may have been able to teach me about being caring and sympathetic, but they would have been hard pressed to teach me to perform well on a standardized test. It is my opinion that schools should be in the business of imparting practical knowledge first and foremost. Parents should be more than capable of calibrating their child's moral compass. In any case, values are a bit subjective. Many parents already get angry when teachers communicate certain scientific FACTS to their children. How much more conflict can we expect when teachers start trying to teach their students the value of tolerance for things like religious freedom, abortion, LBGT equality, gender equality or even (gasp) common vaccination? It's just not feasible to put that on them. I say let teachers concentrate on what children "know" and hold parents accountable for how sympathetic or caring they become.
My parents may have been able to teach me about being caring and sympathetic, but they would have been hard pressed to teach me to perform well on a standardized test. It is my opinion that schools should be in the business of imparting practical knowledge first and foremost. Parents should be more than capable of calibrating their child's moral compass. In any case, values are a bit subjective. Many parents already get angry when teachers communicate certain scientific FACTS to their children. How much more conflict can we expect when teachers start trying to teach their students the value of tolerance for things like religious freedom, abortion, LBGT equality, gender equality or even (gasp) common vaccination? It's just not feasible to put that on them. I say let teachers concentrate on what children "know" and hold parents accountable for how sympathetic or caring they become.
To the parent:
So to summarize your ethical quandary, you preached your values to everybody else until it was time for you to have to live by them. And now that you do, you find that your primary obligations are to your child and no one else (and how selfish it would be to put YOUR "ethics" ahead of your child's safety and development!). The logical next thought would be then to consider that all those other parents who did the same before you were no less holy than thou. Perhaps you don't need a pat of encouragement from the NY Times. Perhaps you need to consider whether you've been looking at the issue from the wrong perspective all along, and what really needs adjustment are your "values."
So to summarize your ethical quandary, you preached your values to everybody else until it was time for you to have to live by them. And now that you do, you find that your primary obligations are to your child and no one else (and how selfish it would be to put YOUR "ethics" ahead of your child's safety and development!). The logical next thought would be then to consider that all those other parents who did the same before you were no less holy than thou. Perhaps you don't need a pat of encouragement from the NY Times. Perhaps you need to consider whether you've been looking at the issue from the wrong perspective all along, and what really needs adjustment are your "values."
5
The Ethicist is wrong on this one.
Parents who pull their children out of urban public schools are the ones responsible for the decline of those schools. It is an uncomfortable fact. It is also true. The suggestion that "becoming involved in local and state politics" will absolve you of your sin is appealing, but false.
Attempts to reform urban schools in New York have failed not because of a lack of involvement by politicians, but because those schools have been abandoned by the affluent and the middle class. New York City schools are now among the most racially segregated in the country. They got this way because parents wanted to do what was "right for their children".
I too am guilty of this offense. I am a NYC public school teacher who moved to a nice suburb so that my kids would have a strong school environment. So, what is the solution? Well, for starters we can stop papering over our own culpability by blaming urban school teachers who have devoted their lives to dealing with a problem that will never be solved as long as our schools remain economically segregated.
Parents who pull their children out of urban public schools are the ones responsible for the decline of those schools. It is an uncomfortable fact. It is also true. The suggestion that "becoming involved in local and state politics" will absolve you of your sin is appealing, but false.
Attempts to reform urban schools in New York have failed not because of a lack of involvement by politicians, but because those schools have been abandoned by the affluent and the middle class. New York City schools are now among the most racially segregated in the country. They got this way because parents wanted to do what was "right for their children".
I too am guilty of this offense. I am a NYC public school teacher who moved to a nice suburb so that my kids would have a strong school environment. So, what is the solution? Well, for starters we can stop papering over our own culpability by blaming urban school teachers who have devoted their lives to dealing with a problem that will never be solved as long as our schools remain economically segregated.
12
The foundation of every school is its parents. The foundation of every successful family is its parents. Successful parents equal successful children, and students and schools. When the good parents are lured away, for whatever reason, it is a tall order for any school to right itself.
I don't want to encourage the third letter writer's guilt. You did what you thought was right at the time. The results have been regrettable. It was not your fault.
However, since this is a discussion of ethics, I do want to discuss one assertion which I think is faulty. When an employer suspects theft and installs security measures, their intent is to end the theft. If the cameras serve as a deterrent, they've done their job. While I can't speak for your boss, I think many employers would be equally happy if cameras ended theft without leading to an arrest.
If you notice a change in procedure and the sudden appearance of cameras, is that a betrayal of your employer to alert a co-worker whom you suspect? If the information by accident or were provided with it confidentially, then yes. But if all you did was observe a change in policy and the installation of security cameras, there is nothing unethical about saying to all your co-workers something to the effect that security has tightened up.
To be clear, I don't think you owe your co-worker a warning if you think doing so will endanger your job, but just sharing information you acquired by simple observation is not a betrayal of your employer.
However, since this is a discussion of ethics, I do want to discuss one assertion which I think is faulty. When an employer suspects theft and installs security measures, their intent is to end the theft. If the cameras serve as a deterrent, they've done their job. While I can't speak for your boss, I think many employers would be equally happy if cameras ended theft without leading to an arrest.
If you notice a change in procedure and the sudden appearance of cameras, is that a betrayal of your employer to alert a co-worker whom you suspect? If the information by accident or were provided with it confidentially, then yes. But if all you did was observe a change in policy and the installation of security cameras, there is nothing unethical about saying to all your co-workers something to the effect that security has tightened up.
To be clear, I don't think you owe your co-worker a warning if you think doing so will endanger your job, but just sharing information you acquired by simple observation is not a betrayal of your employer.
10
This letter writer shows the pernicious effect of using standardized tests to evaluate schools. The writer indicates having observed, via experience volunteering, that the school "seems perfectly fine." Yet the writer believes there is something seriously wrong with it -- clearly something is wrong with how the teachers are educating the students. Some things I would wonder about a school that would indicate serious problems: Is the school dangerous? Is there bullying? Are the teachers incompetent, uninterested, absent? Is there a lot of turnover among staff? Are the students chronically absent? I would think these would be hallmarks of a school you would not send your child to. Thus the problem with test scores - why believe your eyes (school is fine) when you have test scores?
From personal experience - I send my two kids to schools with low test scores, and my kids have had a fine education & will go to college (they are grades 8 and 10). In the school, 40% of the student body has limited English & 70% are classified as low income. The teachers have been great, the learning environment has been awesome, my kids have been challenged in their classes, they were never bullied, etc. etc. What do test scores tell me about the school that my many years of experience with it do not? Should I look at the teachers & tell them that they are failures because the kids who just arrived in the US can't pass the standardized test?
From personal experience - I send my two kids to schools with low test scores, and my kids have had a fine education & will go to college (they are grades 8 and 10). In the school, 40% of the student body has limited English & 70% are classified as low income. The teachers have been great, the learning environment has been awesome, my kids have been challenged in their classes, they were never bullied, etc. etc. What do test scores tell me about the school that my many years of experience with it do not? Should I look at the teachers & tell them that they are failures because the kids who just arrived in the US can't pass the standardized test?
8
Don't fall victim to test scores. If the school "seems fine," let your child go there for a year, or two. Then you can judge if learning is going on there. From listening to your child, looking at his work, talking to his teachers and to other parents, you'll be able to tell.
What your child could gain from being in a diverse, real-world environment, instead of some kind of enclave, is potentially much much valuable than him being stuck among a bunch of expert test-takers.
Our children go to a school with less than stellar test scores. It's diverse, with lots of English-language learners. They've done great, they love it. If they come not to like it, if it starts to seem like a waste of their time, then it would be time for us to figure out something else.
Come to think of it, I went to schools with bad reputations (test scores) myself. I ended up with a PhD and have exactly the kind of job and life I want.
Don't flee. See what the place is actually like.
What your child could gain from being in a diverse, real-world environment, instead of some kind of enclave, is potentially much much valuable than him being stuck among a bunch of expert test-takers.
Our children go to a school with less than stellar test scores. It's diverse, with lots of English-language learners. They've done great, they love it. If they come not to like it, if it starts to seem like a waste of their time, then it would be time for us to figure out something else.
Come to think of it, I went to schools with bad reputations (test scores) myself. I ended up with a PhD and have exactly the kind of job and life I want.
Don't flee. See what the place is actually like.
6
I live in Oakland. We are in an area where our test scores are low. It is not necessarily about low test scores. I sat in and observed several classes in several schools. Here is the difference in Oakland between the "flatlands" - very low performing, "slope" - underperforming, and "hills" - grade level performing schools; the amount of time spend on INSTRUCTION. In flatland schools about 40% of the day is spent in review and building "background knowledge" that is possessed by hills school students (in "slope" schools that number is approximately 25% of the hills schools) - partially because the higher the income, the more experiences - and partially because the families in the hills schools send their children to school fed, clothed and on time 95% or more of the time.
Flatland schools try to achieve similar on-time attendance and must hire someone at the cost of the school / district to do so. This means that if your child attends a flatlands school beginning in kindergarten they are a full grade level behind hills students at second grade and by the time that child leaves 5 grade he or she is more than two grade levels behind.
In Oakland, if you want your child working at grade level and you send your child to a neighborhood school you MUST supplement that education in the afternoons, weekends, school breaks and the summer - there is no other option. Even our high schools have one fewer period a day than districts in the area - 8 semesters fewer education in a subject.
Flatland schools try to achieve similar on-time attendance and must hire someone at the cost of the school / district to do so. This means that if your child attends a flatlands school beginning in kindergarten they are a full grade level behind hills students at second grade and by the time that child leaves 5 grade he or she is more than two grade levels behind.
In Oakland, if you want your child working at grade level and you send your child to a neighborhood school you MUST supplement that education in the afternoons, weekends, school breaks and the summer - there is no other option. Even our high schools have one fewer period a day than districts in the area - 8 semesters fewer education in a subject.
17
I teach in a NYC school very similar to your description of flatlands schools. We too must spent an inordinate amount of time building background knowledge, which as you noted, takes much time away instruction that should be dedicated to grade-level material.
The students in our school who excel do so for the exact reason you, and other commenters, have stated; for various reasons, these student supplement their education outside of the school day.
I sympathize with the situation faced by the first letter writer. Regardless of what school he eventually attends, I would implore them to instill a love of learning into their son. Read to him, or at the very least let him see you reading (when you have time of course) and constantly ask him questions.
In my experience, the students who truly excel were equipped to do some before they even entered my classroom.
The students in our school who excel do so for the exact reason you, and other commenters, have stated; for various reasons, these student supplement their education outside of the school day.
I sympathize with the situation faced by the first letter writer. Regardless of what school he eventually attends, I would implore them to instill a love of learning into their son. Read to him, or at the very least let him see you reading (when you have time of course) and constantly ask him questions.
In my experience, the students who truly excel were equipped to do some before they even entered my classroom.
I'd like to chime in with many of the other voices to say that test scores are just test scores. There is significant evidence that the biggest impact on school test scores is poverty. I've worked with many schools that had low test scores but amazing teachers and administrators that I wouldn't hesitate to send my child to. I've also worked with schools that had high scores, but a terrible school culture that I would never want my child to attend.
10
My kid flunked the math portion of the test two times. Then he passed with a score almost at the genius level. Do you think, in those few weeks, he became a math prodigy? No, of course not. He got the "right" test! This whole testing mania is a product of the testing-industrial complex and lobbying by test companies. I know high school counsellors who tell those who failed to, next time, answer the questions they know then fill in the "A" bubble for all the rest. Flunked again? Next time, "B" bubble...and so on. So, what kind of educational quality is that?
When parents go through a public handwringing (and I do think it is more for the gesture in most cases than it is a sign of serious consideration) over whether to go public or private in their kids' schooling, or whether to wrangle their kids into a better public option than the school in their neighborhood, I roll my eyes. Every single parent I know will pretty much sell their grandmothers to get the kids into the "best" place they can. I know many parents who have cheated to enroll their kids in the public schools in wealthier areas than what was legitimately available to them. I know a parent (a public school teacher, no less) who worked the system to get her kid into the best-performing public school in her district (that white mom did not want her white daughter enrolled in her assigned school because it was so full of brown, Latino boys, in a city where gangs are prevalent). Ethics seem to go out the window when it comes to pushing one's kids out in front of the crowd. Parents come up with excuses for why it's acceptable or excusable, but it really is not.
10
So let me get this, Prof Ethicist.
It's A-OK for a family to move to send their kids to a school with better test scores. But it's not fine -- in fact it's racist -- for parents to object when their children are bused to bad schools, or when students with poor test scores are bused to their neighborhood schools, bringing down the quality of the schools. And of course white flight generally is a racist scourge.
So why is it fine to do something when it is described in one way -- seeking the best for one's own children -- but evil when the same act is described in another way?
Isn't hypocrisy a wonderful thing? Where would "progressives" be without it?
It's A-OK for a family to move to send their kids to a school with better test scores. But it's not fine -- in fact it's racist -- for parents to object when their children are bused to bad schools, or when students with poor test scores are bused to their neighborhood schools, bringing down the quality of the schools. And of course white flight generally is a racist scourge.
So why is it fine to do something when it is described in one way -- seeking the best for one's own children -- but evil when the same act is described in another way?
Isn't hypocrisy a wonderful thing? Where would "progressives" be without it?
10
Your kid comes first. That's why you had him.
9
@turbot. I wish that my parents had shared your philosophy. If you have children, turbot, they are truly blessed.
Here in Spain the schools are not funded by local taxes and are much more uniform regardless of the local income level. That said, all of the budget cuts during the economic crisis have really hit education hard. Where we live everyone spoke negatively about sending our son to the public school that had a space for him. It is totally run down and on top of it his class has kids from the poorest minority populations, gypsies and North Africans, which everyone claimed would ruin his chance of getting an education. Well three years in we couldn't be happier. It turns out that the naysayers are simply racists and xenophobes and that actually our son is flourishing in his diverse class. I am so proud that we are in this class and that my son can have friends from such diverse backgrounds. There are definitely positives to public education and sometimes there are things more important than test scores.
9
Here in NJ, some of the highest per-student costs are in the worst-performing districts, and much of the cost is bourne by the state and federal governments. So the local-funding scheme isn't as relevant as some think (may vary in other states).
The unfortunate crux of the matter is that the schools are limited in their potential benefit for the students. One of the most important factors on educational outcome is the student's home life, which is largely outside the scope of the school.
The unfortunate crux of the matter is that the schools are limited in their potential benefit for the students. One of the most important factors on educational outcome is the student's home life, which is largely outside the scope of the school.
As a parent,your primary commitment is to your children. There is more at stake that the test scores, teaching quality, and advanced classes. As you point out, you can't provide and lacks at this school. with your work load and care taking responsibilities.
The most important effect will be their peers: their values, beliefs and behavior. It's hard to believe that now, but that will be at least half of their education and out of your direct control. You may luck out and they value your core beliefs - but that is a gamble with their lives.
I am not advocating for materialistic,competitive and shallow lives. Find a school with a socioeconomic balance, where they can find their niche.
Do your best for them and support society's needs in another ways.
The most important effect will be their peers: their values, beliefs and behavior. It's hard to believe that now, but that will be at least half of their education and out of your direct control. You may luck out and they value your core beliefs - but that is a gamble with their lives.
I am not advocating for materialistic,competitive and shallow lives. Find a school with a socioeconomic balance, where they can find their niche.
Do your best for them and support society's needs in another ways.
6
A black civil rights activist was asked why he sent his children to private school instead of working for better public schools. His response was, "I can work for better public schools, but my children can't wait for them."
26
The school serves mostly very poor children. It's widely understood that children from very poor homes often come into their school years at a disadvantage because they weren't read to, taken to a variety of places, spoken to as much as middle class kids are, etc. It's curious to me, then, that the letter writer would state that low test scores must be a result of something the school is doing wrong.
13
We faced a similar dilemma when my son was young. Our son participated in the decision. After weighing all of our thoughts and preferences we chose the neighborhood school. He's in his late 20s now and extremely successful. He's learned to be both self-reliant and able to work well with people from many walks of life.
2
Why assume that low test scores are the fault of the schools? I've taught after-school programs at numerous "at-risk" schools in NYC (up to three at a time) in every borough except Staten Island, and the teachers I met there were mostly experienced, intelligent people, no different from the teachers I had as a child in the suburbs. The difference was the students. While some came to school prepared and motivated to learn, many did not, and a high percentage didn't show up to school regularly. You can't teach kids who aren't there. Keeping your kids out of the public schools will drag those schools' results further down. If your kids show up, and are motivated, and you support them at home, they'll do well. My daughter is attending kindergarten at our neighborhood school in Queens and she's doing just fine. The public schools and teachers' unions in particular have become a political punching bag by those who want to step in, privatize, and make money off of our kids. Don't believe the hype. Test scores test the students, not the teachers.
5
We tried the low scoring neighborhood public school and by third grade we fled to an elite independent school, which has the virtue of a diverse student body supported by an endowment and generous financial ad - it also has the benefit of very bright motivated kids ( and their parents) At the end of the day I guarantee you will feel far worse seeing your child ignored, bored and bullied then you will seeing him at a better school.
18
#2, I think, may be a legal question instead of an ethics question.
As for #1, of course your higher duty is to your own child. Does anyone even need to ask this question? The only thing "seriously wrong" with the school is that its services cannot overcome the deficiencies that exist in the lives of its children. Do not expose your child to this level of dysfunction and drop the guilt.
#3 - the thief saw the camera as well as you did and should have changed his ways then, that he didn't is his problem, not yours. Some people can't save themselves and you shouldn't get the way of the inevitable downfall unless you want to go down too. Again, drop the guilt.
As for #1, of course your higher duty is to your own child. Does anyone even need to ask this question? The only thing "seriously wrong" with the school is that its services cannot overcome the deficiencies that exist in the lives of its children. Do not expose your child to this level of dysfunction and drop the guilt.
#3 - the thief saw the camera as well as you did and should have changed his ways then, that he didn't is his problem, not yours. Some people can't save themselves and you shouldn't get the way of the inevitable downfall unless you want to go down too. Again, drop the guilt.
7
Please don't use your child to make a political statement in support of public education. I agree with a previous comment: "Don't sacrifice your son to your ideals." It's not worth it. Send your child/children to the best schools you can.
9
regarding you feel that youre friend is now homeless as a resulr of the theft...your friend had a substance abuse problem- you knew about that...that you did nothing about...that in turn might have helped? not sure why you didnt extend yourself to your friend- if he were a real friend. - you werent much of one.
no you dont get clemency.
no you dont get clemency.
1
On the last question, I am not a lawyer but I believe that tipping off a crook, let's say a dishonest public employee on the take, that a sting operation was afoot, would probably end up with the tipster being arrested and charged with conspiracy or some other crime.
1
What does being an interracial couple have to do with anything? The part about being first-generation college graduates is at least linked to public school education.
38
Relax, the writer was probably simply setting a context so as not to convey a question of racist "white flight" or some such...
A lot. You want your child to fit in.
I suspect (although I could be totally wrong) that the letter writer might have been implying that moving out of the neighborhood with the poor school to another one might be abandoning a neighborhood predominately of color for a whiter one. He or she might have been indicating that they are liberal in their thinking by being an interracial couple. Of course, the letter writer could have been Clarence Thomas and then this is all moot.
This raises a serious ethical quandary for us: Do we let our neighborhood kids and our own values down by fleeing to a higher-testing public school in a richer part of the city?
YES! My parents did if for my brother and me. Why shouldn't you use your wherewithal to make a better life for your child? Your family comes first.
YES! My parents did if for my brother and me. Why shouldn't you use your wherewithal to make a better life for your child? Your family comes first.
36
I would think that as a citizen you have the responsibility to make the public schools truly excellent instead of letting your brood off the hook and then forgetting about it once they are graduated. Where is your patriotism and responsible citizenship?
I take issue with the parents' assessment of the local public school "doing something wrong." Blaming public school teachers or the "system"misses the mark. The problem is poverty.
The only urban experimental schools that succeed are those with wrap around services: before school breakfast and care, after school homework help, most importantly mental health and job training for parents.
Stop blaming the school. Its' the myriad social problems that accompany these children and the issues they then sadly carry into the classroom each day.
And don't even get me started on standardized testing (mandated by politicians who know nothing about real teaching and learning). These ridiculous tests only put money in the coffers of testing companies and rarely measure meaningful learning.
The only urban experimental schools that succeed are those with wrap around services: before school breakfast and care, after school homework help, most importantly mental health and job training for parents.
Stop blaming the school. Its' the myriad social problems that accompany these children and the issues they then sadly carry into the classroom each day.
And don't even get me started on standardized testing (mandated by politicians who know nothing about real teaching and learning). These ridiculous tests only put money in the coffers of testing companies and rarely measure meaningful learning.
85
Amen, Kerry!
Thank you Kerry for writing this! To add to your comment, the other problem I see are communities not asking why public school systems allow their schools to have unequal resources. Every household -- regardless of income -- need to work together to demand equal resources, instead of thinking about themselves. To families that make more and feel entitled to better schools -- shame on them for not caring for their neighbor that lives less than an hour away, in the same public school system going to a different, poor quality school. Such selfishness, silence and mistakenly believing their neighbor (that could be living on public assistance, but they're more or less than 15 minutes away) isn't part of their community is indicative of being okay with an unequal system.
While I agree with the commenter, the local school may still be unable to provide the writers's son with a good education due to the overwhelming unmet needs of his fellow students. The writer's family could contribute financially to the local school while sending its child to another school that seems to be a better fit.
We struggle with this question too, for when we move back to Chicago next year or in the next couple of years. The neighborhood school that we were previously zoned into performed very poorly on tests. We would be moving back to the same area. However, we also know it to be a school with a nice community, and know at least one family that was happy with it. Our son is already ahead of where he's supposed to be when it comes to things like reading, and he will always receive a lot of learning in our daily lives. What I've come to realize is that it's not the younger grades that matter as much, but maybe once you get to third or fourth grade, that it starts to matter, as long as the parents are making sure the kids are staying on target. But after that, peer pressure starts to mount, and whether or not the school provides an environment in which the kid feels comfortable trying to do well or wanting to learn becomes an issue. Many commenters mention grades and scores, but that's only part of the equation. Part of a very, very real equation where peer influence can start to get pretty serious in a part of the city where there's a lot of trouble to be had, and where going to college is far from the norm. In our case, we'll be moving again for my job before our son gets that old, so we can put him in a neighborhood school now with fewer consequences. But if that's your school/peers in the long term? It's easy to be righteous when you're not faced with the decision.
35
"What I've come to realize is that it's not the younger grades that matter as much, but maybe once you get to third or fourth grade, that it starts to matter..."
The earliest grades may be the most important. Fourth grade reading scores almost perfectly predict high school grades. Children that don't become fluent readers with high comprehension by fourth grade probably will never catch up.
The earliest grades may be the most important. Fourth grade reading scores almost perfectly predict high school grades. Children that don't become fluent readers with high comprehension by fourth grade probably will never catch up.
This is asking the wrong question because it presumes that the test scores tell the story and that schools actually determine educational outcomes. The strongest correlates to educational outcome are social class -- unfortunately. Schools do their best but at the end of the day the social capital of the parents, in this case educated and working, will determine the outcome. The question should be whether the school in the poor neighbor can accommodate a child who is as ready to learn as their child is. I sent my children to a school at the bottom of the district but it had a great principal and teachers and they got a great education. Some of the kids in their classes got pregnant, etc. in the 8th grade but my kids, of educated parents, got through college without missing a beat. The other question is the culture of the school -- a "good" school can have a toxic atmosphere and no feeling of community while a "poor" school can have a rich sense of community and a creative spirit. Education is too rich a process to be measured and what the kids learn go beyond the 3 R's.
59
CFB is absolutely right. Tests scores reflect the racial, socio-economic demographics of the school more than anything else. Yes, what the schools themselves offer--good teachers, solid curriculum, positive culture, competent management, adequate resources, etc.--clearly matter. But the strongest indicators of long-term student achievement are the parents' educational attainment, as well as the level of their involvement in their children's educational experience.
1
The best predictor of how well your child will do in school is your child not the school. If you don't think your child is in danger of violence from bullying from either other students or teachers, then be confident in sending your children to the school, and continue to volunteer when you can.
The one caveat is when your child enters middle school and beyond when schools with more resources will better serve your child who can take advantage of a richer and more challenging environment.
The one caveat is when your child enters middle school and beyond when schools with more resources will better serve your child who can take advantage of a richer and more challenging environment.
25
We wrestled with the same idea. We hated the idea of White-flight. But our first priority is to our child. When we transferred him to a high performing public school, I instantly noticed the homework was about 2 years ahead of what he was being given in the poor performing school. He deserved to be challenged. You run faster with competition and that is the same with academics. Poor performing schools handle violence much differently as well. After my son was hit, the teacher said they could not call the perpetrator's Mom because she was at work. We left that week.
46
Let's be honest, schools test scores demonstrate what students are capable of doing on one test, one day out of the 180+ school days of the year. It's a minuscule snapshot of what these children can do. You have stated that you live in a low socioeconomic area, which also contributes to students poor scores. Students from these homes have 50% lower vocabulary than students from middle class homes, and 80% lower than upper class families. I have taught at Title 1 schools and can tell you that many of these children are worrying about where their next meal is coming from rather than scoring well on a test. Teachers can only do so much. I suggest you go in and observe a class (if it's permitted) and see how the teachers are instructing. You may be pleasantly surprised.
28
To the son who complained about supporting extravagant parents--really, he feels they still owe him a debt? They gave birth to him and provided for him when he was young without them expecting anything in return. He could've easily ended up being the extravagant one, or he could've completely ignored them and allowed them to financially go under. He seems like he didn't do either, and that may be a testament to their parenting and the money and time they put into giving him a proper upbringing. It's disconcerting that this part of the equation isn't even entertained by the son--he sounds exceedingly selfish. I agree with The Ethicist's conclusion--the jewelry should be used to pay for the parents' remaining care.
17
As the writer of the query, I feel compelled to respond. I don't think the ethicist is wrong, but I would like to clear up some misconceptions. My parents insisted my brother and I subsidize their fancy lifestyle, while we worked hard to provide for our own children. Neither of us is wealthy, and we have both always lived modestly. Subsidizing our parents went on for forty years, even as my brother and I encouraged them to cut back, which they refused to do. I now have debts resulting from having to pay for my parents' poor choices, funds that I believe should have gone to my children's care.
1
The last question would better be addressed to a lawyer and not a touchy feely social counselor or ethicist type, and hopefully before and not after you find yourself charged with several crimes for helping out your criminal best friend, buddy, or someone you just work with and feel sorry for.
8
For the Oakland parents choosing a school, I note that your son will just be entering kindergarten. Many below have offered advice on how to choose whether or not the school itself is deficient, and have extolled the potential benefits of experiencing an economically (and ethnically) diverse environment.
You have plenty of time. Even if you discern that the school itself has issues (as long as they are not about safety), you could at least stay until middle school. Your child is not going to be unable to get into Stanford because he went to a less rigorous elementary school. In the meantime, you may learn about your own child's gifts and needs; then you can choose accordingly. The school might change. The neighborhood might change. So might the place you would move to. Do you like your neighborhood and your home? Stay awhile.
You have plenty of time. Even if you discern that the school itself has issues (as long as they are not about safety), you could at least stay until middle school. Your child is not going to be unable to get into Stanford because he went to a less rigorous elementary school. In the meantime, you may learn about your own child's gifts and needs; then you can choose accordingly. The school might change. The neighborhood might change. So might the place you would move to. Do you like your neighborhood and your home? Stay awhile.
31
A child will not succeed or fail in life based on the school's average test scores. His own test scores will matter, but only to a certain point. Loving parents, stable home life, peer group, natural interests and ability as well as luck will also determine his future.
19
To the parents in the public school quandary: test scores typically correlate with the socioeconomic background of their students. Lower socioeconomic background, lower test scores. HOWEVER, if the school seems do do slightly better than might be expected by the overall demographic of the community, they're probably doing a lot of things really right. Since you're already involved in the schools, it may be worth the risk. If your child doesn't seem like he would be safe or otherwise in an environment where he can learn, that's a different choice entirely.
19
The act caught on camera was likely the "straw that broke the camel's back". He was probably responsible for the theft that led to the camera being installed.
Even if the theif had been tipped off, he probably would have stolen something else from someone else. Tipping him off wouldn't have fixed whatever it was that made him desperate enough to steal from his employer in the first place.
My best guess is that tipping him off would have merely delayed his fate, not prevented it. I could be wrong.
Even if the theif had been tipped off, he probably would have stolen something else from someone else. Tipping him off wouldn't have fixed whatever it was that made him desperate enough to steal from his employer in the first place.
My best guess is that tipping him off would have merely delayed his fate, not prevented it. I could be wrong.
35
Test scores, like any other measure, must be taken in context. In the case of the neighborhood public school, an important part of the context is the economic status of the students. For varying reasons, the "city's poorest kids" most likely aren't getting the support at home they need to score well on tests. At best, the kids' parents are hard-working people who simply work too much to make ends meet to have the time to help their children with school. They also are probably not well educated to begin with and might not have the ability to help. At worst, the kids' parents just don't care, and depending on their mothers' activities during pregnancy, the kids might have some cognitive issues. The letter writer's child might thrive in the school, which, as others have mentioned, might be doing a great job educating its students. Remember, education is a journey, not a destination.
I'm not sure if it would be ethical or not, but IF the questioner's belief is that moneyed people avoiding sending their children to a bad school makes the school worse, and that those moneyed people should send their children to the bad school, THEN the questioner is at least hypocritical for sending thier children elsewhere.
I'm not sure if it would be ethical or not, but IF the questioner's belief is that moneyed people avoiding sending their children to a bad school makes the school worse, and that those moneyed people should send their children to the bad school, THEN the questioner is at least hypocritical for sending thier children elsewhere.
16
Not that I take this into consideration this for every choice, but it's true that my ancestors (not that far back ) braved all to get to the USA for a better life and that included better education. So when we had to choose between our district public elementary school or the nearby private university lab school for our son, I did look carefully at both. And I chose the private school. Because it seemed far better in every way I could imagine. And that's one of the touchstones of my family and my husband's family (also immigrants).
20
The parents concerned whether they have a moral obligation to send their child to a school dumbed down by a mass attendance by "poor children" (code for immigrants in California) are morally obligated to send their child to this low quality school if they are responsible for its failure by either being illegal immigrants themselves, or politically supporting the current mass immigration flooding of the US with illiterate foreigners and or the Sanctuary City policies of California that sabotage and refuse to enforce our nation's immigration laws, in other words presently deny the sovereignty rights of citizens in liberal democracies. If these parents are part of or have caused the problem they should be forced to suffer the logical consequences of it, not given an option to inflict damage on the common good and then escape the collateral damages themselves.
26
It's interesting that the anti-immigrant types attribute everything to immigrants. The writer mentions that they are an interracial couple, though does not mention which races. He does mention that they live in Oakland. The children from poor families who attend their Oakland school are likely to be African-American--i.e., "native," non-immigrant folks). This is not an immigrant problem. It is an underserved poor community problem.
(Aside: the illustration shows what looks like a black-white couple. I wonder if that is the true mix, or was an assumption?)
(Aside: the illustration shows what looks like a black-white couple. I wonder if that is the true mix, or was an assumption?)
11
In Oakland, most of the poorest people are not immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants for many generations.
4
So, I'm from an area where the 'poor children' are generally white and native born.
Does this change my moral obligation?
Thanks for your sensitive and subtle assistance in this matter.
Does this change my moral obligation?
Thanks for your sensitive and subtle assistance in this matter.
19
The parent worrying out the school problem has as a first problem the fact that the kids will be our inheritors, and must be prepared to take over responsibility in their turn. We can't plant seeds on concrete and expect to feed the world.
Biggest problem with urban schools doesn't come from the school - it comes with the kids and their background. The urban school population suffers from the conception that school is something imposed from outside, something that should be resisted; kids are discouraged from performing by their peers. It's hard to do well under this pressure.
Schoolkids are a resource that must not be undeveloped; the community cannot afford it. There's no guilt in planting your seed where it'll grow best.
Biggest problem with urban schools doesn't come from the school - it comes with the kids and their background. The urban school population suffers from the conception that school is something imposed from outside, something that should be resisted; kids are discouraged from performing by their peers. It's hard to do well under this pressure.
Schoolkids are a resource that must not be undeveloped; the community cannot afford it. There's no guilt in planting your seed where it'll grow best.
85
"Biggest problem with urban schools doesn't come from the school"
Sometimes it does. Many charter schools are successfully teaching children that would otherwise be "unteachable" by their neighborhood schools. As a parent that has dealt with public, charter, and private schools, I reject the notion that the community and parents are always to blame. There are lower standards and expectations for minority and low income students. Public schools in poor neighborhoods often just blame the parents and shrug as if to say you can't expect to educate this group. My experience with private school parents is that they often turn the pressure right back on the school. They blame the teacher when their child does not learn. So please refrain from re-spewing the easy stereotypes about poor and minority students. And by the way, rural schools have some of the same issues. We all know urban is code for African-American.
Sometimes it does. Many charter schools are successfully teaching children that would otherwise be "unteachable" by their neighborhood schools. As a parent that has dealt with public, charter, and private schools, I reject the notion that the community and parents are always to blame. There are lower standards and expectations for minority and low income students. Public schools in poor neighborhoods often just blame the parents and shrug as if to say you can't expect to educate this group. My experience with private school parents is that they often turn the pressure right back on the school. They blame the teacher when their child does not learn. So please refrain from re-spewing the easy stereotypes about poor and minority students. And by the way, rural schools have some of the same issues. We all know urban is code for African-American.
9
This is the classic "blame-the-child" response. The reality is that these children get the worst performing teachers and when they fall behind they are told that they have a low level of ability. This sets in motion a self-fulfilling prophesy for the child. The child will be placed in classrooms where no teaching is happening while "good" students get the best teachers. I spent years in classrooms without any teaching and asked my friends who had the good teachers to let me know what I should be learning.
Respect for study, teachers and education is a priority cultural value without which children don't have much chance for success in school or life. For the vast majority of people, even if if one is a genius entrepreneur, education is the only way up the social and economic ladder. Not that I necessarily disagree with you but are the id expressed in your second paragraph assumptions? Are there facts and statistics to support them? If so, then the parents need to be re-educated so that their children will have the chances they deserve.
A plea to the first letter writer: Please don't send your son to a poor school when you can do otherwise. That is exactly what my husband's parents did decades ago, and it has had life-long negative consequences. He endured violence, discrimination from both students and staff, bad teachers who turned him off permanently to certain subjects, lack of access to basic resources, and more, and to this day asks himself why his parents didn't notice or care enough to do something about it when it was well within their ability. He received a lot of instruction at home (both parents were scientists) and is very learned in many areas, but that doesn't begin to make up for the damage to his life opportunities and psyche.
Your volunteering and remaining engaged citizens is more than enough. Don't sacrifice your son to your ideals.
Your volunteering and remaining engaged citizens is more than enough. Don't sacrifice your son to your ideals.
273
I could have written a large part of your letter, Michelle.
A parent's first responsibility is to their own kid. The school will be only marginally better for your kid's being there, if any at all. It's not hurting the other kids to move yours to a good school.
To the LW: I understand fully the concept of "if everyone acted as I do, would we all be better off, or worse off." But the fact is that other parents aren't acting as you do, or the school wouldn't be in the shape it's in. Your kid has one set of parents and you are it. Don't feel guilty about stepping up.
A parent's first responsibility is to their own kid. The school will be only marginally better for your kid's being there, if any at all. It's not hurting the other kids to move yours to a good school.
To the LW: I understand fully the concept of "if everyone acted as I do, would we all be better off, or worse off." But the fact is that other parents aren't acting as you do, or the school wouldn't be in the shape it's in. Your kid has one set of parents and you are it. Don't feel guilty about stepping up.
4
I remember the unspeakable boredom of public schools and learned early that I could skate along quite well without ever having to study or apply myself. That terrible habit has plagued me all through my working years; I often wonder how my life would have turned out if I had actually worked to realize my dreams.
4
You might volunteer as a reading tutor in your neighborhood school through Faith Network in Oakland, for example.
To the first writer:
Some of the best hospitals have high mortality rates, because they take on the sickest patients. Similarly, a school with low test scores may be a bad school whose students would do better elsewhere--or, it may be an excellent school that does a better job with each student than any other school would, but that has a student body facing a lot of challenges.
You say that this school serves some of the city's poorest kids. You also say that you know the school well and it seems fine. But you nonetheless fear that there must be "something seriously wrong" with the school because the average test scores are still low. Your fears are understandable, but so is the conflict you feel about moving your child to a more affluent school.
Before you move, I recommend you check how each of these schools performs given a similar student. In other words, what is the average test score for its economically disadvantaged students, and what is the average test score for its economically advantaged students (like your child)?
This tells you more about how your child will do than the average for each school, which will be affected by the mix of advantaged and disadvantaged students. The state is required to make this information available, and it may mean you don't face an ethical quandary after all.
Some of the best hospitals have high mortality rates, because they take on the sickest patients. Similarly, a school with low test scores may be a bad school whose students would do better elsewhere--or, it may be an excellent school that does a better job with each student than any other school would, but that has a student body facing a lot of challenges.
You say that this school serves some of the city's poorest kids. You also say that you know the school well and it seems fine. But you nonetheless fear that there must be "something seriously wrong" with the school because the average test scores are still low. Your fears are understandable, but so is the conflict you feel about moving your child to a more affluent school.
Before you move, I recommend you check how each of these schools performs given a similar student. In other words, what is the average test score for its economically disadvantaged students, and what is the average test score for its economically advantaged students (like your child)?
This tells you more about how your child will do than the average for each school, which will be affected by the mix of advantaged and disadvantaged students. The state is required to make this information available, and it may mean you don't face an ethical quandary after all.
215
A child learns more from his peers than he ever does from his school or his parents. If this child is bright and willing to learn he should be with other kids who share the same values and goals. When this child is grown and leads a successful life due to a good education he will be yet another person who can help to change the system. If he become a listless failure out of boredom or bad company, he becomes part of the problem.
15
Agreed with all of your points here.
Unfortunately, there is a high correlation between poverty, race, and standardized test scores in this country. Often, a school's test scores reflect the demographics of population. As a PhD in education and longtime consultant who has worked with many, many kinds of schools, I can tell you that the quality of instruction and the test results aren't necessarily related in the ways we'd like to think they are.
Unfortunately, there is a high correlation between poverty, race, and standardized test scores in this country. Often, a school's test scores reflect the demographics of population. As a PhD in education and longtime consultant who has worked with many, many kinds of schools, I can tell you that the quality of instruction and the test results aren't necessarily related in the ways we'd like to think they are.
I'm not sure they mentioned moving, EA. Yes, the word "fleeing" was used, but the parents may have been simply speaking about getting the child enrolled in a wealthier part of the city. In some districts there are ways to do this legitimately -- I have no idea how things work in Oakland -- but I know parents who cheat to get their kids enrolled "across town" elsewhere. It should be mentioned that much of Oakland is very rough indeed, and that the poorer and browner flatlands are surrounded to the east and north by whiter and much, much wealthier neighborhoods. And some terrific schools.
1
The mother of Mencius, famous ancient Chinese philosopher, moved three times to provide a proper educational environment for her young son. Hope these concerned parents have more choices and need not move as often.
42
For the first writer, you don't "have to believe" that the school is doing seriously wrong. The school may be doing as well as possible, given the struggling population it works with; this is supported by the excellent evidence of your own eyes as a volunteer. One other piece of evidence you can use is "disaggregated" scores. Given the requirements of Federal education law, you should have a way to see the scores of smaller "subgroups" of students. You may find, for instance, that students like your child do better than they do at neighboring schools, but that a large number of English Language Learners (who may take up to seven years to become fully academically proficient) "pull down" your school's scores. This is true at my daughter's school, where most subgroups perform better than the same subgroup at other schools in our county, but historically struggling subgroups exist in large numbers. My daughter gets the benefit of excellent teaching, and the added benefit of a rich, interesting community of diverse kids. It's worth looking into.
166
English Language Learners are not always going to pull down scores. There were plenty of international students at my high school, from countries where other languages are primarily spoken. However, they tend to be honour students and often have higher GPAs than the "local" kids. Social class, of course partially plays into this. The school is a private, university preparatory school and the international kids were mostly boarders.
1
We have raised three daughters in a relatively rural area. All three attended the same small school that my husband and I attended. Our school has many kids whose families live well below the poverty line, a high number of free/reduced lunches and not so great test scores. However, my husband and I are both college graduates, our oldest is a college graduate, our middle is in pharmacy school and our youngest, who still attends that same school, plans to attend college as well. My thoughts are that it is not only the schools job to prepare a child for college, the parents have to shoulder the load as well. If the safety of the school is an issue (which it doesn't seem to be), that's a completely different conversation. Our school has low test scores because we have a lot of kids whose parents, through no fault of the teachers or administration, just don't care enough about their child's education to foster a learning environment at home and make it a priority. Your child will either make it or he/she won't, depending on how much importance is placed on education from you, not because a bunch of kids don't score well on a state standardized test. Some other great qualities that my girls learned from attending school with kids whose parents sometimes didn't have food to put on the table or money to buy presents at Christmas, is generosity, kindness and gratefulness. And as a result, they are better people for it
111
Well said. Why do parents expect schools to do all the work? No matter how poor the education that a school provides, parents can enrich a child's knowledge with their involvement.
The world is full of museums, parks, concerts and volunteer opportunities. Take your child by the hand and explore the world together. Knowledge is not only gained in a classroom.
The world is full of museums, parks, concerts and volunteer opportunities. Take your child by the hand and explore the world together. Knowledge is not only gained in a classroom.
3
I suspect the first letter was written precisely to get the reassurance the Times provides. It would be utter madness to sacrifice your own child's education out of guilt, and I doubt the parents would have done so. Now they can go ahead and do what anyone would have done in their shoes, but they get a nice pat on the back for exhibiting "generous" sentiments, without having to do anything to help the situation in their neighborhood school
67
Wow, that's cynical, accusing the parents of seeking an imprimatur. The columnist said they could do what they could to improve conditions such as contacting their lawmakers. It's not "heroic" action, but action it would be.
1
NK, You assume that LW's motive was small. Most people mean well and my guess is that LW's struggle to choose for self/child or community was deeply felt -- self-benefiting in only the best sense. Same principle inflight: Put your oxygen on first to insure you can be there and do for your child.
1
>> without having to do anything to help the situation in their neighborhood school
The letter writer said they volunteer at the school. They probably also vote for pro-education public officials, pay their taxes, etc.
The letter writer said they volunteer at the school. They probably also vote for pro-education public officials, pay their taxes, etc.
2
Shouldn't be forced to send your own kids to a bad school, eh??? I thought the whole point of the public education philosophy was that it was community-based and COMPULSORY!!! WE certainly force others to send their kids to lousy school, especially rural redneck whites in the South, or inner-city kids. Have you ever heard of Brown v. Board of Education??? Have you ever heard of truancy laws??? How about Article 26 in the UN Declaration of Human Rights??? How much do you want to bet that "The Ethicist" and the letter-writer both support these powerful, Modern principles, laws and values. Lousy schools are, at least in part, a product of our public education laws and philosophy. Lousy schools are not neutral or just 'less than the best.' They often actively hurt kids and damage them for life. If you support the idea of public education (I bet you do!!!), then why would you opt-out for your own kids?
21
Are you of the impression that compulsory education means that a family can't move to a new neighborhood for whatever reason they like, including the schooling of their kids. Is every family that chooses a neighborhood because of their schools guilty of this ethical breach. Are excellent public schools guilty of providing greater privilege to their students. Should they all perform down to the level of the worst schools in the name of equality?
1
"Why would you opt-out for your own kids?" Because your duty to your own children is greater than some vague duty to society at large.
1
Why are you bringing up Brown? Are you complaining about the end of forced legal segregation, really?
2
I can't resist commenting about the question of sending a child to a school with poor children and bad test scores. I would recommend that these parents speak to the principal - if the principal is willing, of course - about the breakdown of test scores. Scores are not all that makes a great school. There are reasons why test scores may be terrible but a school may be otherwise great. This could have to do with the number of special ed students and the backgrounds of the other children in the school - whether they were exposed to reading early and so forth.
I speak from experience here. My children attended a school with terrible test scores that had wonderful curriculum, teaching, and philosophy. I have a background in education, so I was able to evaluate beyond the scores.
Incidentally, there was a regime change in the school system during my children's tenure there, and suddenly, the school with the terrrible rating? It was rated A+. Same teachers, same curriculum, same philosophy.
Test scores indicate poverty level.
I speak from experience here. My children attended a school with terrible test scores that had wonderful curriculum, teaching, and philosophy. I have a background in education, so I was able to evaluate beyond the scores.
Incidentally, there was a regime change in the school system during my children's tenure there, and suddenly, the school with the terrrible rating? It was rated A+. Same teachers, same curriculum, same philosophy.
Test scores indicate poverty level.
141
Regarding the Oakland, CA public school, a safe school environment would be my first consideration. I went to a poor Hispanic dominant but safe school district. I did well compared to my classmates and miss many upward mobility opportunities which could have been addressed but weren't. My immigrant parents were struggled to financially survived so all of us children were focusing on our part time jobs to help the family and sacrifice our school works.
My years at this particular high school gave me a lot of appreciation and empathy for my Hispanic American classmates and anyone with Hispanic surnames. My point is that test scores is not everything. I can learn STEM materials quick and at any times but it is much harder to get the opportunities to learn the humanity materials such as observing girls being nudge by circumstances to get marry or couple up right after high school, kindness to others when one has nothing else to offer, learning to live within one's means, not falling in the trap of envy and entitlement, and enjoy simple things in life like a long walk to school or books from the libraries. All of this is possible because I did feel safe in my school and with my classmates. Going to a richer school district would required extraordinary support from my immigrant parents and the stress and pressure would be too much on them and then get pass on to us, their children. Most people will not step up to move beyond their comfort zones.
My years at this particular high school gave me a lot of appreciation and empathy for my Hispanic American classmates and anyone with Hispanic surnames. My point is that test scores is not everything. I can learn STEM materials quick and at any times but it is much harder to get the opportunities to learn the humanity materials such as observing girls being nudge by circumstances to get marry or couple up right after high school, kindness to others when one has nothing else to offer, learning to live within one's means, not falling in the trap of envy and entitlement, and enjoy simple things in life like a long walk to school or books from the libraries. All of this is possible because I did feel safe in my school and with my classmates. Going to a richer school district would required extraordinary support from my immigrant parents and the stress and pressure would be too much on them and then get pass on to us, their children. Most people will not step up to move beyond their comfort zones.
57
Really? You did not want the pressure of going to a better school? I also am first generation, and faced the same pressures to get a job,etc. from my parents whom also apparently like yours did not value academic success. But I had a few teachers who saw my potential and attempted to aid me to not fall into the "couple up" or factory employment that my parents saw for me instead. It took a lot more years but I did finish college, and would be the first to tell any parents to go for the better schools.
1
State test scores are not a good indication of the quality of a school, but a reflection of its students' SES.
Standardized tests must be quickly and easily graded. The only questions that fit this characterization are multiple choice problems and short answer questions, scored by temporary workers who are paid piecemeal. These workers cannot devote time to read each answer properly, and must adhere to a rubric (which is subject to change if the proportions of scores do not align with expectations). See Todd Farley's Making the Grade for an excellent exposé of the grading industry.
These tests cannot measure true learning inside a school. Schools can fare well in two ways: have students who already know how to find the answer expected of them, or to focus on test prep to the exclusion of all else. While the second method may result in high test scores, it is not an education. It only results in high scores for the specific test and not for other tests (no Success Academy graduates were accepted into specialized high schools, which use the SHSAT as an entrance exam). Beyond questionable efficacy, the test prep methods are abusive, with reports of students soiling themselves during mock exams.
What's appalling is how underfunded schools are, especially those that serve poor students, as they can't count on parental financial support. If you have volunteered at these schools and can talk to teachers, students and parents firsthand, this is the best test.
Standardized tests must be quickly and easily graded. The only questions that fit this characterization are multiple choice problems and short answer questions, scored by temporary workers who are paid piecemeal. These workers cannot devote time to read each answer properly, and must adhere to a rubric (which is subject to change if the proportions of scores do not align with expectations). See Todd Farley's Making the Grade for an excellent exposé of the grading industry.
These tests cannot measure true learning inside a school. Schools can fare well in two ways: have students who already know how to find the answer expected of them, or to focus on test prep to the exclusion of all else. While the second method may result in high test scores, it is not an education. It only results in high scores for the specific test and not for other tests (no Success Academy graduates were accepted into specialized high schools, which use the SHSAT as an entrance exam). Beyond questionable efficacy, the test prep methods are abusive, with reports of students soiling themselves during mock exams.
What's appalling is how underfunded schools are, especially those that serve poor students, as they can't count on parental financial support. If you have volunteered at these schools and can talk to teachers, students and parents firsthand, this is the best test.
59
Regarding the petty theft letter, if the LW observed the new cash handling procedures and the new cameras, the petty thief should have noticed them as well. Give yourself a break, we all make our own beds. "It's choice not chance that determine [ones] destiny." Jean Nidecht
79
Though I agree with you in the particular, I take exception to the quote you used. Anyone in a comfortable position can come up with a pithy and self-congratulatory saying to explain a successful life. In today's economy, it's by no means unusual for people to make good choices and still find themselves on society's scrap heap.
58
I completely agree that the parents' first obligation is to a quality education for their son. But I want to point out that the parents' assumption that the school's method of teaching is at fault for low test scores. They see for themselves that everything else about the school "seems perfectly fine"
As they point out, the school is filled with some of the city's poorest kids. Research has shown that the stresses that come from living in poverty have a powerful impact on learning and could explain the school's low scores. There are many articles on this, but you might want to start here:
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16889
As they point out, the school is filled with some of the city's poorest kids. Research has shown that the stresses that come from living in poverty have a powerful impact on learning and could explain the school's low scores. There are many articles on this, but you might want to start here:
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16889
50
"Otherwise, the school, which we know fairly well through volunteering, seems perfectly fine." Parents should not allow their on-site perception of a school as "perfectly fine" to be wiped out by test scores from a highly disputed standardized test. Plenty of experts as well as classroom practitioners decry these tests.
86
Sometimes, low published test score averages are brought down by specific subcategories that may be overrepresented in this child's school: English language learners; students with disabilities. If the child in question does not fall into one of these categories, his/her scores might be expected to be higher than the published average.
The school district I live in, and from which my children graduated was this way. The local newspaper always pointed out the district's deficiencies, with the expected result that much of the middle class parents moved out, and the average kept going down. If there are honors programs, advanced placement courses and the like available for the student who needs to be challenged, he or she should do fine.
The school district I live in, and from which my children graduated was this way. The local newspaper always pointed out the district's deficiencies, with the expected result that much of the middle class parents moved out, and the average kept going down. If there are honors programs, advanced placement courses and the like available for the student who needs to be challenged, he or she should do fine.
59
From the overall tenor of the letter, the low test scores may be a convenient justification. I sense there might be some discomfort about his son being surrounded by "the city's poorest kids" if he attends his neighborhood public school. It's natural for every parent to want better opportunities for their kids. It's just too bad that other kids/families don't have the privilege to "flee" to a richer neighborhood.
1
My biggest frustration with the public school districts I have firsthand experience with is that my goals and priorities did not align with that of THE OTHER PARENTS, not necessarily the teachers or administrators. Too much emphasis on maintaining the status quo, sports achievements and busy after-school schedules, combined with terrible (and oftentimes rigged) school boards that cared more about keeping low tax rates than producing the highest achieving students.