From reading the article I think the real problem is these ‘affluent’ parents are not ‘affluent’ enough. If they were, their kids would be in a private school, probably a boarding private school. But, they just don’t earn enough. They are stuck with public, therefore, not good schools. They work hard to get all of everything into their kids’ schools as anyone beneath them doesn’t deserve any education. So, to me the time has come where every child’s name should be put in a barrel & enough for each school, as it is currently staffed. With no consideration of how long it takes any child to get there, how good the teachers are, what socioeconomic strata they come from, or color they are. This should happen every year. So a child might not be in the same school 2 years in a row. Because of this parents should work hard to make sure ALL schools in the district or town are good, very good, & the students get everything they need to be successes. Including school supplies. If they don’t like it, let them go begging at the private schools to have their kid be the ‘poor’ kid in class.
32
What is MUCH worse are union contracts that keep clearly bad teachers employed even though everyone knows that they are walking disasters.
This is why schools away from the big cities are so much better places for students than the big union-controlled districts.
OBTW, why was he info about Attorney General Lynch comPLETELY removed from that IG report two weeks ago?
18
What joy there must be at the Times to get an opportunity to slag the successful parents in what it deems over privileged areas. There is nothing the Times likes better than a story it can spin about what it perceives to be overbearing parents who are obnoxious about wanting the best for their kids and refuse to shut up and roll over for a school system that they may not trust. Do these people understand how ludicrous they sound complaining that the school bureaucracy has to deal with intelligent professionals and can't simply steamroll the families the way they presumably would like to? What exactly is their proof that anyone was harmed by the parents forcing the school district to be accountable?
94
Don't bring offspring into the world until you're able to feed, clothe, shelter and insure both their safety and educational opportunities without the government doing all this for you.
29
Primary, secondary, and higher education is competitive and it makes the brightest rise to the top. Do not meddle with it according to the principles of touchy-feely, leftist, radical, and politically correct (predominantly) Democrats.
12
The leap to a general view from this limited example is nonsense.
26
Transparency is important, Why should you be believed? If I claim you are lying please prove me wrong by providing specifics to prove I am wrong when I proclaim "fake news based on the usual sources that for numerous reasons can not be identified" Please provide sources that can be verified
10
I found it odd that the identity of the entire community was disguised to protect anonymity, particularly given that the piece had very little in the way of direct quotations, and relied mainly on public meeting transcripts. Is the NYTimes' deference yet another facet of the privilege enjoyed by residents of this well-to-do but anonymous burg?
60
Can we please stop with the "Scandinavia" cliche?
Have any of you been there? It is small in population, has dreadfull food, horrible weather, boring people and is just so dull, dull, dull!
No wonder so many came to Minnesota back when they still had a chance.
20
Why do upper middle class parents try to separate their children form the poor families. They are likely to be Democrats who profess support for the poor but are actually hypocrites.
They talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
Again, this TALK is another weapon of opportunity by the Democrats against their political enemies.
17
Reminds me of my days as a teacher back in the 70s. I was teaching in a pretty rough urban high school, right outside of Washington, D.C. Mostly African-American, largely underprivileged. Prior to that, I had been in a more affluent middle school. When I decided to quit the profession, my principal asked to speak with me. He wanted to know if it a student at threatened or harassed me; whether I was fearful, etc.
Though I didn't phrase it this way, my response was 'It's the parents, stupid.' In neither case was it the kids... but rather, parents like those described here. Inner city kids are often 'on their own,' with no one overseeing their personal lives or health, let along their education. Upper middle class kids have their own problems with obnoxious arrogance- and when you meet their parents, it's easy to see why.
48
This is giving me nightmare type flashbacks. This is essentially an insoluble problem. The squeaky monied wheel will get the attention. The essential solution is to have schools with the focused, talented teachers/staff across all socioeconomic levels. A difficult task...very difficult.
And that is unlikely to happen…and certainly not with the current “leadership.”
13
Many of the respondents are missing the point. This isn't about segregation, it's about obnoxious parents not willing to let the teachers teach. Not willing to let their kids experience a "hardship" (having a bus ride 10 minutes longer) about having to essentially accept life's challenges without the benefit of lawyers, advocates and the like.
82
The article is simplistic, playing to an audience of perhaps non parents. The issues of class and race are only part of a parents choice. School emphasis, sports vs academics, artistic endeavors vs math-science plays a role. Word of mouth a very big role. Religion or not. Lenient or tough discipline. When parents find a great school they will fight to keep it great, to keep their children in the school the way it is. And I’ll bet most of the Times’ reporters and editors feel the same way.
50
When well conceived and well administered, good magnet schools offer ways to neutralize or even exploit entitled parents for the benefit of all students. When a struggling public school in my home town (a school with a long and respected history) welcomed two, then three magnet programs, all the "only the very best for my child" parents swamped the (low income, of color) PTA. Because these parents now used their contacts to advocate for all students in the program or, even better, on the campus, the rising tide floated pretty much all of the boats.
The ultimate solution to this problem is for all parents to see all children as their moral responsibility. Our confused immigration policy makes it clear we are not there yet, but we could be.
19
Entitled parents help school districts in one big way: tax dollars.
Which also help the library, parks and recreation, and donations to local educational institutions like museums.
All of which if fully utilized enrich children.
21
Sounds like democracy at its finest. Citizens vested in their communities making their voices heard for change.
42
Broward County, Florida has the largest unified school district in the country where funding for students is divided equally regardless of the wealth of individual neighborhoods.
On one end we have Douglas High School, of recent distressing notoriety, which is extremely high achieving. It is the kids who attend the schools and the parents who motivate them that makes the difference, not the Scandinavian model of distribution.
15
The bulk of these comments leave me heartsick and despondent at the prospect of my country's future.
We have long since abandoned the "experiment" that was our beginnings for the moribund, class-ridden stultification of the society we struggled to escape.
Comments, too many, along the lines of " how much would you be willing to compromise your own child's educational opportunities to improve the opportunities of others? " express perfectly the reason the pilgrims, the pioneers, the first brave Americans fled.
Natural sentiments, of course, but the foundation of the evil Charles Dickens brought to light, the reason for the revolt of men like Jefferson, Franklin and others.
Of course they shared the perspective of the very wealthy yet, somehow, they nurtured a grander vision. One we have, apparently, abandoned to the logic of self-interest and fake individualism.
We've begun a sad retreat from the adventurous view of the future we shared at our beginnings.
It does, though, explain a lot regarding our current bizarre national situation.
31
Perhaps if the property tax system changed to equalize school resources, these imbalances might level out. A sort of socialized school funding system would prevent "affluent" schools, as well as reducing the clustering of people into desirable districts.
33
You make a great case for school vouchers. Since the public school system as we know it can never provide equal opportunity to all students, we should turn to a system that would treat all families equally - just give every family as equal voucher and let them spend it for educatoin.
5
If you think you are going to stop parents from doing everything’s possible from helping their kids then you are suffering from an unfortunate deleusion.
37
I don't have all the answers but I do remember, as a single parent in poverty, going through "teachers-education" at a California State college in the late 90's, our mentor education leaders teaching in graduate school actively demeaned young students in poverty and implied "watch-out" for these students. Not in a good way either.
I remember this well because each and every time I'd raise my hand and make a verbal comment against this stereotype. So many times I did this that I am sure my Professors were tired of hearing it and expected it. Luckily, at the top of my class, I had enough clout not to be reprimanded for it--considering one of the Deans taught one of our classes. That Dean always engaged in the behavior of warning new teachers against "poor children".
The parental behaviors of stereotyping other parents living in poverty would entertain an entire graduate thesis. I'll leave that for another time.
19
Perhaps we need to look beyond schools to solve the ills that take place outside of the classroom. That involves a discussion about affordable day care, affordable housing, more public transportation in rural areas, and so on. We also need to see a cultural shift towards valuing elementary and secondary education, and making college and trade schools more financially reachable.
However, we continue to fixate on schools as a cure-all. We have found one solution around the poverty problem in my southeast Ohio, Appalachian-designated poor high school. Our students have had access to free college classes from three different universities for the last six years. Those students are able to graduate from college in three years instead of four, and many of them continue on to graduate school.
Good universal preschools, with compulsory attendance and low class sizes for 4 year olds, may help raise reading levels throughout the country despite the child's economic status.
38
My second grader attends a rural tier 1 school (50% of kids are on free or reduced lunches) and we are an upper-middle class family. I entered the education system wanting to help all the kids regardless of their social resources. However, the parents view me as a college-graduated elitists. That my lifestyle was simply given to me by the prosperity God they pray to. Never mind Calculus, Aerodynamics, Thermodynamics...etc. I cannot help their children if they don't follow-up with helping their children. They have already made-up their minds that science museums are boring.
As a result, I have become another opportunity hoarder for my child in an ever competitive global economy. Inequality be damned! There is already a crowd at the top.
54
On the other side, my children were in a school district that was subject to a court mandated reassignment process for de facto segregation. The court was right, but the result was a heavy-handed administration that included threatening teachers who failed to recommend minority students to the program for gifted students as being hostile to diversity, a core goal of the district. The NAACP won the case and lost the battle as the district descended into the soft racism of low expectations followed by the inevitable "white flight" including our family.
JD
23
As the unhappy witness of a boundary controversy in my own district (my own children are grown), I doubt that a community was convulsed over a "10 minute" addition to commute time between two equally high-quality schools. Something else was going on that the authors either failed to uncover or avoided mentioning. Perhaps the "10-minute average" was more like an hour for some of the students or the two schools were not in fact equal. The overall community may be wealthy but what percentage of the wealthiest households have children in public schools? Where do the administrators and teachers send their own children? No one can ask these questions when the district isn't named. In opposing the interests of "selfish" parents to those of noble administrators the article was also biased and naive. Administrators routinely make decisions that serve their own interests or the interests of other adults and not those of students. Even when they say they serve the interests of students en masse, they may ignore the needs of a minority. If administrators were all wise, just and kind we would never have needed the Special Education law, but if the administrators here regarded parents as "natural enemies" they should leave. They are incapable of a calling that includes approaching the parents of the children in their care with an open mind and treating them as partners in a shared enterprise.
39
2018 final high school exam for the SCIENTIFIC section in France, added to the combined 16 hours for mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering science and biology.
French exam - 4 hours essay : "Is literature an effective way to move the reader and denounce the cruelties committed by humanity?"
Philosophy exam - 4 hours essay : "Is it necessary to experience injustice to know what is right?"
Geography exam - 1.5 hours essay : "The African continent facing development and globalization"
History exam - 1.5 hours essay : "Middle East, hotbed of conflict since the end of WWII"
U.S. high school degree, combined 3 hours of multiple choice questions and short essay leading to a SAT score.
The French system produces open minded and versatile adults. The American system produces robots.
No money can help a French kid facing a writer's block during the philosophy exam, money is all you need to optimize the SAT score.
No need to change the school system, the only thing to change is the final exam.
38
Here here!
I appreciate your ideas and central theme that parents and teachers are almost be design in conflict. I am a parent. I also have picked up, since I was a young adult, the social view that you note most parents and especially those of means, have somehow not, which is that schooling/public education is for all children. Why do many parents live as if this social good need be in conflict with what is best for their child? What about civics? And then the principal can get coopted even when she presumably has inculcated the eductor’s values and chooses to teach in public schools. I will read the book you cite that is basic to teacher training. Why have civics been sidelined in America such that seemingly good people disregard it when it comes to their kid?
12
Our district in Portland, OR recently went through an ugly administrative process involving Spanish Immersion (SI). SI was available in our local elementary school but only if you get in via a lottery. The program is 30 years old and quite exceptional such that everyone wants in for their kids. The lucky kids are in separate classrooms but in the SAME SCHOOL. So this just rubs it in the non-SI families' faces every day. The non-SI families quietly petitioned the district to move the SI kids out of our local school. We became aware of it only after it had made it's way though many administrative hoops. Neighbors turned on each other, it became ugly and quite damaging for the neighborhood. Friendships were ruined. Kids became involved and because little ears hear everything, scared. It all started with resentment, entitled parents that resented that their kids were missing out on an opportunity. I don't blame the parents for being upset, there should be no such thing as Spanish Immersion. A second language should be taught to every child from the get-go, but man, if you can't do it for everyone, don't put the two programs in the same building!
22
The loud-and-proud selfishness in so many of the comments is disheartening. I’m a parent and want the best for my child too. But part of “the best,” for me, is growing up with awareness of the world around us and kindness toward other human beings. And as a member of society, I care about the education of everyone.
A point that many of the “I do what’s best for my kid” crowd are missing is that by grabbing all the resources you can for your kid, you are actually reducing the total resources available. Instead of just grabbing a bigger piece of the pie for yourself, you are making the pie smaller. For example, the parents who used up so much administrator time on the school split that curriculum for *both* schools suffered.
28
Dear parents,
If the teachers of your children know nothing, then please step into the classroom and show everyone how it is done. Otherwise, please support your teachers and recognize that they are professionals worthy of your respect and appreciation. And, by the way, please lobby the government for better pay for teachers, and give them the resources they need to succeed -- unless, of course, you have stepped into the classroom yourselves. In that instance, be calm and carry on, as you know already what to do for your children and for others.
29
We know where the authors teach. The question is where do they send there children to school - and why?
12
That is a very good question. We have an expert on school integration who lives in Minneapolis. The expert's kid went to the whitest school in town because the expert lived in the whitest neighborhood in town. The expert did not avail himself of the many magnet programs that would have sent the child to a more diverse school.
12
In the olden days, parents moved into neighborhoods where they knew and liked the schools their children would attend. What is wrong with that? Why is caring about your children now considered entitlement or disruptive. The outrage about this phenomenon is part of the problem in our country. If you have children and are thoughtful about their future, that is considered too pushy. If you have tracking that separates kids according to their ability and intelligence so that all move at the same pace in a classroom, that is considered elitist and discouraging to someone's little darling somewhere. This is very sad and a threat to our country.
34
I had colleagues who had gone to extraordinary efforts and expenses to enroll their ordinary children in private and charter schools. They abhored public education though all of them attended public schools. Their common complaint about today's public schools was inferior teachers and poorly motivated students.
I suspected they were uncomfortable with Latinos and African-Americans because of their hiring practices, which were disproportionately whites with private college degrees.
8
Oh, okay. If my district wants to pull my child out of her neighborhood to send her on a long bus ride across town on a bus I will just roll over and genuflect to authority.
40
You have to wonder if Anette, Elliot and Amanda (the authors of this article) have kids of school age?
It is easy to be academic when you are on the sidelines of life.
When you have 'skin in the game' and can be adversely impacted (or you kids will be); the game and the stakes change drastically.
Oh, to be young and impartial and dare I say a bit removed from it all...
7
My kids are now adults but I remember this dilemma. I live where the public school is pretty average.
At one point a family member offered to pay tuition for my kids to attend a local private school K-12 with a great reputation and high rate of Ivy League admissions .
The day I went to visit I was impressed by the classrooms , the teacher student ratio, the abundance of resources.
But I decided to keep my kids in public schools. Why ?
Because when I was speaking with the principal a janitor came in to report he’d taken a large stick away from a young boy .
The kid threatened to have his parents call the school and get the janitor “ in trouble “.
When he walked out the principal looked at me and said “ the most problems we have here have to do with the parents “.
Nope. I didn’t want my children there. The vibe of entitlement and exclusivity was unappealing.
From a very middling public school education my sons have done very well for themselves . Both in traditional and untraditional ways.
Interestingly enough one son learned to address adults as Ma’am and Sir from his African American friends.
He was often complimented on his manners and social skills : the comfort and ability to negotiate with all kinds of people . That opened doors for him . Scholarships and job opportunities.
There are many kinds of education . Be careful what you wish for.
60
Exactly. I live in a very wealthy area of Connecticut and our kids attend the very diverse public schools in our town for precisely this reason - you learn as much about the world from different kinds of people as you do from the curriculum. A block over is another town that some of our neighbors have moved to as soon as their kids hit school age because the schools there have better test scores but also a much higher average household income level. Sorry, but I want my kids to learn to relate to the broadest spectrum of people possible and not just wealthy white folks like ourselves. The K-12 educators in our extended family all say that educational attainment is largely determined in the home and our kids are doing great thus far.
33
Kingsley might actually be better used as a case study for how public engagement could have been better. The public howls when they are left out of the decision-making process, and their concerns dismissed as being too selfish. The school board could have run the entire process differently. Start off alerting people to the problem, and then explore various solutions, which may or may not include redrawing boundaries. When people raise issues related to commute times or needing to establish new friendships, then those specific problems can be thoughtfully addressed. But the first step is uniting and engaging people to find a solution to a common problem.
21
Ultimately, it's the role of government to take the unpopular option and act for the good of the people. Just as it imposes taxes on the haves so that it can provide for the have-nots, it needs to be able to stop the wealthiest parents from pillaging district resources for the sake of their own kids.
Ultimately, it doesn't really have anything to do with kids or schools or education at all. It's got nothing to do with parents or educators. This is something much simpler than that: wealthy, well-connected people were able to exert considerably more pressure on local government than anyone else would have been able to. It's just that they happened to mobilize those resources in the domain of school policy...this time.
12
I wish the parents of my privileged district cared as much for quality math and science teachers as they do for sports and music. My daughter had content on the parc that was never taught in class and no one said a word
But when they cut some of the travel for music students the outrage took over the community
8
People do not want a level playing field any more. They want a field that is tilted toward people like them, and the ability to tilt the field towards their children in particular. The world is competitive, and people want their kids to have the best shot of winning.
A level playing field is socialistic. A playing field that money and influence can tilt is one natural result of free enterprise. Most countries have a mix of the two.
12
School administrators in affluent districts have to expect intense scrutiny by parents on major changes such as redistricting and plan accordingly. If administrators in the school district profiled didn't, it calls into question their understanding and judgement. Teachers and administrators in affluent districts enjoy significantly higher salaries than other educators and the ability to obtain the resources they need for classroom and extracurricular goals. The downside is that parents are not willing to simply "take their word for it" on decisions that impact their children.
I expect that it wasn't just the extra ten minute commute that upset parents in this example. Whenever you redistrict, some kids will be separated from their friends, middle-school classmates, or even other children in their neighborhoods. Some children are fine with that; others will be deeply upset. Of course parents will advocate for their children under those circumstances.
Both schools draw from the same affluent community, so this example is not a good case study for discussion of the common good and addressing inequality.
13
I believe a more creative approach could have been used. I would have repurposed both high schools with each having a theme and a curriculum to match it. Parents and staff could work on ideas for this approach. I would have reassigned many teachers so that some of the ones from the better school would be involved in developing the theme at the other school. Both high schools would have become better places. Idea. The worse school could have a high technology emphasis. The rich parents would have loved this.
4
If we provided sufficient state and federal funding for our schools we wouldn't have these problems. Slash the inflated budget of our military industrial complex and use the savings to fully fund schools nationwide. Investing in the education of our citizenry is likely more important to our national security than having more bombers, subs, and nukes anyway.
21
if we slash the military budget, people who make submarines will be out of work. it's all connected.
5
We can't continue to provide welfare to defense contractors. These people arguable already have the education, experience, and accumulated wealth to reinvent themselves - they are in a good position to produce something of value to society that can be sold without the need of public subsidy.
8
Something like this is going on in the school district where my family used to live. The level of childishness exhibited by these parents on social media is unbelievable to me.
I am so glad I got my own children out of that town and into a less privileged community, one that actually rallies together to find solutions. My children are so-called "high-achieving" students, but they will learn that there is much more to life than grabbing the brass ring. There is curiosity, empathy, resilience, bravery, and gratitude. There is a willingness to share burdens so that everyone is lifted up. It's not just about how you can achieve the highest SAT scores. What a thing to teach your children, and what a barren life that would be.
23
I work at a school where many parents have figured out that harassing a teacher will often get a higher score for their child for the semester. Administrators are so afraid of parents that they almost never back up the teachers. One parent, for example, expected a phone call every day and told my boss that my "harsh" grading had made her daughter have a "catastrophic" GPA. Her daughter earned a "B" by the way
15
As long as school budgets are tethered to property taxes, there will be inequality in funding.
The job of school administrators is idealistic in nature: to level the chances of all kids getting the same quality of education. Parents who, in their self-opinions, "pay plenty to live here," have what they consider to be realistic, pragmatic views of the function of the school system: to serve their kids; and the devil take the hindmost. If other kids suffer for their actions, so be it.
Ironically, they consider themselves to be progressive; and when the issues are academic, vote accordingly.
10
Rich parents this, rich parents that... did it ever occur to the author that the parents may be upset because their kids have friends in their old school, and might be, you know, not totally indifferent to being picked up and dropped into a different school? Since the article says the schools were not that different academically, this is the first thing that jumps out at me.
22
I had that thought as well. You can't just reschuffle kids randomly. Plus siblings together makes a big difference when having to go to events, open houses etc.
9
Or spend hours on the bus. The article seems to suggest that the parents feel entitled or maybe are just plain bigoted, but the complaints pertain to time spent in travel.
7
An extra ten minutes each way would be an extra hour and a half each week on the road in addition to each impacted child's regular commute time - and remember, this is only an average. This is a significant impact on the community.
Moreover, many families invest a great deal of time and energy volunteering and forming relationships with other families in order to create a strong sense of community for their children. Schools are one of our few remaining public squares, and splitting one up isn't a minor event in the life of a town.
Alternatives would include housing a special, desired program at the school with extra capacity (an IB program, language immersion option, etc.). By the authors' own account, advice from other professionals was not met with a warm welcome, and the tone of this article is dismissive (at best) of the parents who are asked to do more and more every year.
I also wonder why none of these maligned parents were interviewed for this article? I'd be interested in their stories.
5
Not sure what the "science" of sociology, or sociology professors, contribute to society.
5
What a naïve conclusion. Parents don't care about the long run for society, only their children and their place in society.
6
All due respect, but I don’t think it’s naive at all. It is quite astute. I’m a parent and I care about the greater society and the environment and the education system and doing things that support the less fortunate. (I also am a left-leaning liberal.) I also am affluent, but I don’t behave the way the “affluent” parents described in the article. The boundary for the new high school in our area was just outside of our neighborhood (they had everything a new high school could offer, including a laptop for each student!). Was I disappointed we didn’t get in? Yes, but it turned out OK for my kids and that school has had as many problems as any other school in the area. It is unfortunate that we must talk about topics while stereotyping people. No, ALL parents don’t always JUST care about their own kids in the grand scheme of things.
8
Sure, maybe the 1% of the 1% who legit doesn't care if there is a society left behind when they're done taking what's "theirs." Everyone else's kids will have to live in this society, so they would be stupid not to care.
2
From what I read, this is basically what is totally wrong with dealing with the so-called public in this trying to provide a balance in equity in basic, plain American education. It's the so-called educated, degreed parents misbehaving like monkeys in a cage when missing a scheduled meal. I've witnessed this kind of behavior some years ago personally and came away feeling what is the heck wrong with folks not using the mind GOD gave us along with an education or the lack thereof. When did the Planet of the Apes rolled in! The crying, the anger, and bellyaching in social media made situation described in this piece terrible. Is there a better way of handling changes in school choice and redistricting? Yes and no wrong in marshaling resources and professionals in swaying opinions or votes to guarantee that your child gets a better decent education. You have to ask yourself, is this described by Trump and his followers as that these entitled parents are called Coastal Elites? The entitled versus the lesser half who also want the same for THEIR kids? Tsk Tsk Tsk is all I have to say here.
2
The authors here seem to take the a prior view that parental involvement in redistricting isn’t somehow a negative phenomenon but back this statement up with anecdotes while scrutinizing parents presenting peer reviewed research. We need more evidenced based education in this country not more arbitrary rhetoric.
7
The parvenus forget that the upper classes are
the product of generations of caring by their parents,
grandparents and great grandparents.
Their children have a birthright to a superior education
and it is up to their parents to use all of their persuasive
and organizational skills to protect what belongs to them.
Others who are just beginning to climb the ladder
should have an equal opportunity to do so but not at
the expense of those who progenitors have already
paid the price.
Rather the upper class emphasis on education should
be a model for others to emulate.
9
Even as the moldering old upper class uses all its money and all its influence to corrupt our laws and our courts, to build walls of animus and privilege designed specifically to prevent any upstart "parvenu" from climbing the same ladders their ancestors did, as often as not by chance, even sheer mistake.
Yours is a recipe for the triumph ego and greed, and national stagnation in the name of some privilege gained long ago and jealously preserved though avarice and influence regardless of personal ambition or worth.
Its a recipe for today's America, on the precipice of terminal decline. It is the basis of the society our founders risked everything to escape.
Yours is a natural impulse, of course. It also a tragically bad idea.
10
The elephant in the room of all these discussions about school districts: basing school funding on real estate tax revenues.
It's number eleventy-eleven of the many anachronistic things America might think about changing but probably never will, like the electoral college, healthcare based in insurance, etc.
In countries that actually value the education of children (see any Scandinavian or northern European democracy), education is funded and administered at the national level, not according to a model based in how much house you can afford.
23
This article is just as vexing as Lareau's popular book "Unequal Childhood". In her book, Lareau compiled a set of data for white and black families in a range of socio-economic conditions. The student high school and college attainment data were summarized in a data set format for readability. The problem with Lareau's conclusions is that she did not state what is so obvious in the data set. Black affluent students were admitted to better colleges than their white counterparts. Lareau avoids the white-black distinction in this article completely. When a highly regarded sociologist like Lareau avoids controversial social problems, sociology research is suspect.
5
"Parents are concerned for their own children, while educators look to the success of all students."
If only this were true. This sort of statement only serves to escalate while elevating the soap box for teachers. Sorry, but teachers ("educators") have been shown to be just as biased, racist, exclusive and punishing as these allegedly self-centered monstrous parents.
I've seen parents advocate for all students in a variety of ways. Reducing inequities will come from communities of both parents and educators working together. Both have to shift and change approaches.
12
The author is asking the impossible: for parents to care as much about other children as they do their own.
6
Public school educators work for the tax payers. When a parent demands excellence of their own kids, you'd better believe they will also demand excellence of their teachers. There is nothing "entitled" about that.
6
My kids are adults now, but when they both attended the local neighborhood school in Philadelphia that had a reputation of being a high-achiever school. About half the kids were upper-middle class whites, with a smattering of ethic kids from families with professional degrees or PhD's of one sort or another. The other half were poor African-American kids. The school system allowed parents to pick the teacher for their kid, which, as it was explained to me by the principle of the school, was an attempt to keep white families in the public system.
So, every year the white parents got together and agreed who they were going to request for their kid's teacher. This was avidly discussed in playmates and grocery store meetings for months. The school system procedure was that the requests would be accommodated on a first-to-ask basis. So, on the designated application date there would be a predawn line-up of white parents at the school door making sure that their kid was going to get the "good" teacher.
Now, these people would howl if anybody accused them of being bigots, but the upshot of this was that year after year this "integrated" school had two classes in each grade. You could walk down the hall and look through the doors and see for every grade, a class of 80% white kids, with a smatter of Asian and African-American kids. And, next door would be a 98% African-American class. Every grade. Every year.
So depressing.
21
It is very discouraging to see in the comments that many people think that poor kids only are the violent and disruptive ones. Do you really believe that high income exclusively can provide a stable home for children?
There are other factors, as foundational as social economic status that greatly affect children's behaviors and academic success, such as divorce and domestic violence. I live in a affluent town of Northern Bay Area with a 95% white population and I am the step-parent of two white children, the youngest one being a role model at school and the older one being a bully to other students, school staff and teachers, now failing 6th grade. They are both victim of abuse in the other household and the youngest one deal with it by being a book worm and living in fantasy land and the oldest one by living in constant state of rage and self-hate.
I often tell my spouse how lucky that boy is to be white, if it were otherwise he soon would be taken care of by the "justice" system in this country.
Family values, sense of community and a well structured household are being overlooked because we as a society value economic success more than anything.
6
These are the types of situations that are completely beyond our current political discourse. Most people's poiltics stop with their children's education. It's easy to vote for liberal politicians and raise money for distant causes; it's much harder to "risk" your child's future by sending them to a school where poor students of color also go.
Some of the most openly "liberal people" I know send their children to private school. They are all white, of course, as are the schools their kids attend.
These biases and prejudices are covered up with the justification that they are "doing what's best for their children".
5
Shame on engaged parents that want the best for their children and want them to be successful, said no one ever. I won't apologize for working hard and providing my child with a good school that I am an active part of.
29
When your children grow up and leave school, they will inevitably encounter disruptive or unpleasant colleagues, apathetic or stressed bosses, physically or metaphorically poor working environments, as well as pays grades that may not meet your or your children's expectations. If you keep all of these elements out of your children's learning environment for the first 18 years of their lives, how can you expect them to learn the necessary coping skills overnight when they leave school? I went to a public high school where there were disruptive classmates in almost every class I attended. Sure, my learning time was shorter and more fragmented because of them and I hated the disruptive kids. It also made me scream on the inside "Just shut up and let me learn!" Nothing made me want to learn more as a child than when I realized that my education, which I had taken for granted before entering that public school, was being impinged upon. As a result, I left high school with the ability to function, learn, and make the best out of my time in disruptive environments, a skill that would serve me well later in life. Think about that before you lobby for a utopic learning environment.
7
I live in an affluent community, and in pushing for educational reform have been one of my school district's sharpest critics, but this article still comes across to me as extremely negative. The basic issue, not discussed here, is one of trust. Why didn't those parents trust administrators to be fair? Yes, people expect a lot, particularly when they are paying for taxes, but more often than not school districts do a poor job communicating with the parents who are essentially their "customers" in paying the bills through property taxes. A number of school districts are used to having the money just roll in, so they don't do the kind of outreach and relationship building that is now essential to survival in the commercial world. We've seen, at the national level, what kind of wolves get elected when leaders become too distant from their constituents, when they promise but do not deliver real change. These parents, having bought houses that will put their kids in good public schools, are afraid of losing something. This article makes them sound neurotically self-interested. Obviously something provoked their fear. My guess is that that is lack of ongoing and real two-way communication.
9
Maybe public schools should be paid for by the parents, & the parents only, on a sliding scale. Why should those living in town have to pay for all the kids that all economic groups have. The affluent, instead of demanding more of the tax money go to the schools on their side of town, stop giving their kid(s) $100 a week allowance. Put that money into all the schools. Make what parents pay a percentage of wages + investments. That percentage times the number of kids. Closing all religious schools would keep them from leaving the public schools en mass. Many of these schools take anyone who can pay, regardless of religion, so are not strictly speaking religious anymore. Oh parents would have to pay even if they still send the kids to private schools.
1
Our high school district (Hinsdale District 86, Hinsdale, IL) has been battling this issue for 20+ years. Cops had to basically break up the last board meeting with one very vocal group of parents yelling obscenities at the elected officials in front of their kids. This really brings out the worst in people. 800 parents in the district just filed a lawsuit with the DOE/OCR. In this case though, the two schools are very different, even though they are both considered high achieving schools. Such a mess. Facilities need work but no one can agree until the enrollment is balanced.
4
Are these the same entitled parents who raise entitled children?
"Expects bribes or rewards for good behavior.
Rarely lifts a finger to help.
Is more concerned about himself than others.
Passes blame when things go wrong.
Can’t handle disappointment.
Needs a treat to get through the store.
Expects to be rescued from his mistakes.
Feels like the rules don’t apply.
Constantly wants more…and more."
These entitled children grow up to be entitled adults who have failed to learn to take responsibility for their actions and do not understand the importance of contributing to community for the good of all.
It does not bode well for democracy when so few have so much and turn a blind eye to the poor.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/201511/9-signs-child-...
12
It's a vicious cycle - of housing prices and taxes in "good school districts" being high, improving quality of the school, raising housing prices in that area even more. It exacerbates the issue - as parents, who can afford it, and wanting the best for their children, seek out best districts. It makes those districts even better, and takes money out of poor districts, making them even worse.
All this because schools are mostly funded by local housing taxes. Why not, as in Europe, simply change to federally funding schools, or at least state wide?
In many European countries - education level is same regardless if you go to a tiny village school or school in expensive neighborhood. Sure, smaller school might have less extra-curricular activities purely due to size, but academic quality is not diminished. High quality educators are still lured in, unlike in the US. Teachers spend their time teaching rather than dealing with disruptive behavior.
As a former substitute teacher myself (while in college) - I saw within same school: remedial classes - where behavior was a problem, to AP Honors classes - where all students wanted to learn. In theory, I'm all for academic opportunity equality, but as a recent parent myself - of course I will do what's in my power to provide best education possible to my own kids. No parent would sacrifice own child's future for a gamble of improving the outcome for everyone else.
8
Increased travel time by 20 minutes. Every day. 200 days a year. For 3 years. In order to fulfill someone else's idea of a social good?
Some questions: Is it 20 minutes or 40 minutes a day (one way or round trip). Are the parents driving the kid to school, in which case its both kid's time and parent's time.
I don't get why this is considered entitled. I consider it reasonable.
7
If it's 10 min on average, it's either 10 min both ways or 10 min one way (so 20 total), but not 40... Still seems like an aggravation though. Some kids can't get up on time no matter what you try, so they're going to either start going without breakfast or start being chronically late (at least, that's my elementary school experience - I only hope high schoolers are more organized).
1
What happened to discipline? My brother (8 years older) & I were NEVER late for school. My mother wouldn’t have permitted it. She never hit us, but, we knew she’d kill us if we were late. In high school we could stay up after our Mother ordained bed times as long as we didn’t oversleep or get late to school. Restaurant owners in town enjoyed having the whole family come to dinner (birthdays), as we were well behaved. Dressed neatly. Ate properly. We knew how because we did it for dinner at home. All but the dressing up. After I commented on real napkins aS opposed to paper ones in front of a guest, we each had our own napkin ring & cloth napkin. It became a popular family joke. I wouldn’t have misbehaved anywhere. Mom would haVe heard. Somehow she always heard. I guess mothers are deaf now.
2
My husband lived rurally. The rural area between 2 towns was split in half, one half went to one town, one to the other. He and his siblings left on the school bus at 6:30am. Getting home after 3:30pm. I guess I should point out it wasn’t a ‘rural’ Jr/Sr HIgh School. It was renamed John Glenn High School, in New Concorde Ohio. Where Mr Glenn, the astronaut graduated. Time too school isn’t that important. I walked to school: about 10 min to Elementary, 15 to Jr High, first 2 years 5 to High School, then moved up the street & it was about 15. Everyone walked up the hill (both ways) to the high school. The bus dumped the high school kids off at the bottom. My older brother was an honors student there, & graduated Cum Laude while working after classes & all weekends in both High School & College. He walked to work from school, & from home in college & weekends. About 1/2 an hour. Time really means nothing.
1
The real problem is that there is no common good anymore. We no longer even have a common history... When I was in the public school system historical figures such as the founding fathers and even Columbus were considered great men despite their flaws. Now they are just flawed men with no greatness. We have an increasing tribal-ized society fueled by identity politics furthered by major two political party divisiveness that's pitting more and more of us against one another. The irony of Social Media is an increased "connected isolation " were many people interact with like minded people digitally and who aren't necessarily their neighbors.
There is a lessening of a collective "us".
5
Which political party just spent eight years fomenting class divisions and racial hatred from the White House?
2
The core paradox for people like me is that we think the ancient texts produced by dead white males are the cornerstones of progressive democracy. My taste in literature and philosophy might be viewed as very conservative, because it's pretty much all dead white men, but my politics are usually viewed as liberal. It's impossible for me to view thinkers like John Stuart Mill and John Locke as somehow socially toxic, just because they are dead, white, and male.
I'm fine with school integration, as long as all the books being assigned are by dead white men (even if they are critical of their own privilege). Is that contradictory?
3
I'd probably object to my kids reading Cormac McCarthy, because many of his character are (and sound) illiterate. I want my kids reading D. H. Lawrence, because his characters are eloquent and learned. My main objection to proletarian literature (for the purpose of education) is the illiteracy of the characters. the dialogue in such novels may be more realistic, but it's not anything I'd want my kids to emulate. I want my kids to be able to talk like characters from George Eliot. I don't want my kids to talk like Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn, even though I do like Twain.
6
You are on target. I want my my kids exposed to the the great men who thought and acted this country into being. I empathize that Asians blacks and Hispanics Muslims may think otherwise. This is the paradox of equality - everyone wants their own view - and it’s a valid perspective. The consequence is that the country falls into warring factions, or more simply, a war results to reestablish a hierarchy. I’m betting on the latter
1
This is the dumbest argument
Sorry- dead white men wrote flawed and ridiculously outmoded texts (both in format and syntax) that will never appeal to anyone in the modern world (other than pretentious snobs who are mostly living white men) This is why kids hate reading in classical programs.
My girls read what they want and therefore they are avid readers.
If I forced some classical literature, joy would turn to burden, and we'd turn off yet another generation to reading. Also a diverse student body being forced to read dead white men is ridiculous and is not progressive
But - what does this have to do with anything - is the nytimes moderating this at all?
1
Local school districts are vestiges of a time when schools had not yet taken the role of complex social agencies where classroom learning is only one of their functions. To prevent the kind of influence peddling ("my kid first at any cost") in a zero sum school funding climate, would be to turn education delivery to the states. It works in Hawaii, so why not in the 49 other states?
4
What is described in this piece is certainly not a recent phenomenon. In 1964 I was the principal in a Maine city with multiple elementary schools. That September my school was designated by the superintendent to receive a number of transfers. The decision of which these would be was delegated appropriately enough to the transportation director. When a number of parents complained to the superintendent, his solution was to find students whose parents would not complain, obviously the powerless folks.
The more things change, the more ..................
3
"The capacity of the parents and guardians at Kingsley to impede the reassignment process was due in large part to their noneconomic resources: the professional skills and connections they could deploy in a fight against the school district. School administrators found themselves confronted not just by disgruntled parents but by pediatricians, urban planners, public relations specialists and psychologists."
So what? Parents using connections and professional skills to get their way is no different than school administrators deploying lobbyists in state capitols and hiring consultants to stage local bond elections to rake in extra cash or teacher unions coordinating with PTAs and the like to avoid job evaluations that might reflect poorly on teachers.
While I agree that public education is often a nasty political battlefield, parents aren't doing anything more egregious to further their own selfish aims than professional educators do on a daily basis. Public schooling is victimized by everybody involved in it, with the exception of the students who have to deal with the fallout from it all.
9
Excellent points
2
Those who want to compare to Scandinavian countries should remember that those are countries with 4 or 5 million people, homogeneous (mostly white, native born populations), and hence no history of race based discrimination, etc. The school funding is probably different as well - that is, not based on local property taxes.
4
Also, I don't know what the curriculum is like in Scandinavia. I want my kids reading Shakespeare and not Soul on Ice or Leonard Peltier. I've read Soul on Ice twice, but never in school. I believe strongly in a very classical education. I'd be happy, if my kids never read the newspaper k-12 (and just read Macbeth, Plato, Mill, George Eliot, Dostoevksy, and T. S. Eliot). I know that Scandinavia is touted as the zenith of social awareness, but I wonder if Scandinavian kids study social awareness, or is they study harder, more traditional subjects. My attitude toward education is FAR FAR more conservative than my attitude toward politics. As soon as I start talking about education, I start thumping the Western canon.
5
A parent has not only the right but the responsibility to teach their own children.
If that means spending money to get them help o get into a better school or giving money to the school they go to is laudable.
There are people who believe every child has to be given the same advantages.
They are wrong.
A rich person has the right to spend money on their child.
There is a very dangerous movement going on by the liberal movement.
They want to take every possible advantage money might have for those who have it and give it to people who don't.
I have some money that I worked for and I do spend it in ways that make my life better.
I should have that right.
I don't have children but if I did I would spend it on them.
That should be my right.
16
This is a discussion about public school resources. You absolutely have the right to send your kid to the best private school and tutors and extracurricular instruction money can buy. You do not have the right to try to divert public school resources for the sole benefit of your child. Private schools and private instruction exist for exactly the reasons you indicate.
11
Nobody is diverting anything. People exercising their right to influence public outcomes is not entitlement. Period.
4
Hey - not all liberals are socialists. I'm a liberal, a Democrat, and a capitalist, and I absolutely agree with you.
6
The only way to solve this is to use the Scandinavian model - all the money for public schools goes into one pot and is divided equally amongst all public school students. In other words, each public school student receives the exact same amount of money.
This way there is no shopping for the best school, and parents will care about all schools because cuts to education funding will hurt the middle class as much as the rich.
6
One would think that educated people would understand that an educated community is better for everyone, including their own children. Do Scandinavian parents get into screaming matches over which public schools their kids attend? Something tells me that in places where education is a political priority and resources are not hoarded by the wealthiest, these kinds of problems do not exist.
I'm sure some of the multi-paragraph comments explaining why a four-year-old needs a tutor to game the pre-K exam in order to get into Harvard will convince me otherwise.
5
My parents, who were middle class but not what you call you would
call affluent, owned a tiny candy store where they made very good chocolates.
Consequently, none of my teachers ever suffered from a lack of good chocolates while I sat in their classrooms.
Good parents do whatever good parents need to do.
9
Nothing underscores the race/class schism more clearly than schooling our children. In the last paragraph of the editorial, the author remarks that affluent parents should concern themselves with thinking about whether their actions contribute to "greater inequality" and should focus on the "collective, rather than simply individual benefits". Nonsense.
My kids have been at Jewish, public, foreign, secular private, and finally, Catholic schools. Catholic schools have been the best. We're not Catholic. The values they embody, the privilege they don't, and the quality of the non-doctrinaire, non-revisionist curriculum, academic rigor, and overall quality of the student body are all exceptional. And when I engage teachers, I get thoughtful responses. There are no problem kids from problem families who drag down or intimidate the kids.
5
This education debate consistently rests on the principle that the return on your child's education is reflective of your financial investment...which invariably leads to the question of compounding inequality and declining social mobility. However, NYT and just about all media at this point will concede that there will always be a hierarchy in quality (despite looking overseas for contradicting evidence), and so we should accept that it's "entitled" parents' fault for making education unequal. This is a fallacious stance of blaming parents for being competitive "consumers" in an increasingly privatized education system.
We have the ability to have a wonderful publicly funded education system, but given privatizing the education sector is part of a larger corporate agenda, we're instead given these pedestrian meritocratic "conundrums" that ask us to either 1) accept a sub-par public education or 2) accept the rat race that results from unequal, for-profit schooling.
5
The quality of education a child receives should not depend on their zip code.
We are probably (since I cannot say for sure) the only country on the planet where a significant component of school funding depends on the local tax base.
12
Who is advocating for these students? Most people who are economically disadvantaged, and often hold two jobs to make ends meet, do not have time to serve on one or ten committees to protest their kids being bused ten minutes away.
Public school is public school. The remedy for this is to make all schools safe, secure places where learning occurs. The best thing to lobby for would be increased teacher pay and benefits, to encourage good teachers to stay, and to attract new ones.
6
This article was "produced in partnership with the Hechinger Report." Look it up and you'll see that the Hechinger Report is funded by Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, the Lumina Foundation, and some of the other usual charter school backers. Yes, parent voices and democracy in education can be inconvenient. If we replace all of the schools with charter schools, there will be no more democratic school boards, and those pesky parents will no longer have a voice. I'm proud of the parents and teachers across the country who are standing up for our public schools. I hope all our public schools and colleges will be well-supported and well-funded.
10
I'm curious why the authors bring up Newton, MA, which fits their description to a T (two excellent high schools, affluent residents with clout, major redistricting some years ago) yet refuse to say whether it is the community used in the study. My larger concern is the absence evidence that the parents fought to hoard educational resources away from poorer areas, as was the case in the Malibu/Santa Monica example. The only reason the authors cited in this instance is the increased time on school buses for some kids. This suggests that parents were willing to make a huge fuss and waste administrators' time just to stop a minor inconvenience for their kids. In my own experience as a Newton parent, kids were mainly upset because they would be separated from close friends they made in middle school.
6
I’m 67 and tell my son it was very different when I was a kid.
2
Well reading dozens of American novels written between 1840 and 1920, this is not new at all. The affluent looking down on the less fortunate and use their power to override decision made for the good of all.
4
There is a certain measure of whining in the account contained in this column. However, "opportunity hoarding" is a real issue, and it came up recently in Thomas B. Edsall's op-ed column in the NYT, "How Much Can Democrats Count on Suburban Liberals?" That column's point was that people can be liberal in their abstract thoughts and values, but then become reactionary and racist when the perceived threat strikes too close to home. It is basically a toxic form of NIMBYism.
The answer is to chill and take the long view, but the helicopter parents of this column haven't learned that, and probably aren't going to.
6
It's fascinating how many commenters maintain that caring about children other than one's own is irresponsible and/or socialist, even though the example in the story simply involves saving tax money by dispersing a few children to another school 10 minutes away. This lack of care for others is how we wound up with a society full of ill-schooled people compared on any survey of industrialized nations. The level of anger these commenters show reminds me of the old "country" saying: "Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, and the one who yelps will be the one who was hit."
11
for me, it's less about sharing resources, and more about wanting my kids to have a traditional, canonical education. I was a PhD student in English and aimed at a career as an English professor, but I quit, because I was frequently reminded of how antiquated my literary interests were. I was studying allegory and poetic form. I was not studying race, class, or gender. I felt out of place for not having my intellectual interest drive and directed by my political concerns. I might as well have been studying Calvinism or Medieval theology or something. To me, education means reading hard books that are hard to read. It doesn't mean elevating my social awareness or participating in community-oriented work. As long as my kids are reading the same books that were assigned in the 1950's, I'm totally happy to support public education, integration, and even other people's kids. I just don't like political correctness or politically correct revisionism. my main concern is what's being taught and not who's being taught.
6
Wow - this really describes helicopter parenting in action - and it does not benefit kids or communities!
3
What's it appropriate to tell a child who has been replaced by the "collective" as his or her parents' top priority?
2
@fourjaffes: Is there REALLY no compromise between seeking to have all children well-educated and hoarding all opportunity for one's own child? I refuse to believe that there are only those two poles from which to choose.
3
The only way to narrow the achievement gap in education based on socio-economic gradients, is to devote resources to provide more help for students at the lower end of the spectrum. Parents of kids at the higher end will ALWAYS advocate for their kids first. Did Obama offer to send his daughter to the University of Illinois so a poor kid could go to Harvard? How about Chelsea Clinton. I don't think she went to the University of Arkansas, or SUNY.
7
Evidence supported resources is needed NOT resources of any sort. Otherwise, schools could end up with expensive technology and software that may be of little or no value and products where the company did a great job of marketing the product but it doesn't add value. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/bs-md-dallas-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-education-chromeboo...
Telling parents who fight for their kids' education that they are disruptive, entitled, and should care more about the common good rather than their own children is a great way to turn them right off. I understand the writers have some data to back up their points, but they come off as finger-wagging elitists. This is the sort of shaming of the middle/striving class that paved the way to Trump, imo. These people work hard to put their kids in good schools and provide for their families, yet they are told they are racist, unsophisticates from fly-over country. Now they're bad parents, too.
10
When you start with a savagely unequal society and say that the only way to survive and prosper in such a society is through a savagely competitive education system, then you should not be surprised when parents turn savage. The wonder is that the children have not yet absorbed their society's savagery more and begun sabotaging their classmates in kindergarten. If you can make your society a little more economically less unequal (more progressive taxation, etc.), you make the educational stakes less extreme and the politics of education less fraught, and can start down the road of even more equality and peace. If you don't do this, then prepare for the academic version of the Japanese movie Battle Royale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0p1t-dC7Ko
6
We are unique among developed nations in that we have a distinct, vast underclass. As a natural result everybody, regardless of affluence, tries to sort themselves out of mixing with the underclass. Once one has made it out, he will fight to keep it that way. That is the key to 80% of these "integration", "segregation" and "inequality" pieces.
3
As an educator who has worked in K-12 and post secondary with students from various socioeconomic backgrounds, have come to the conclusion that higher SES level students don't necessarily have better parents; their parents have the means to pawn off the parenting issues to professionals i.e. therapists, tutors, etc. Snowplowing is creating a lot of students that can't problem solve. It is one of the reasons I question staying in education but the students are always what bring me back.
5
At it root of the issue of inequality of resources for schools based on funding by local property taxes. Talent and intelligence are equally and randomly scattered without regard to zip code or where you are on the social class scale. All children should have a right to a quality education provided in schools that are adequately funded and housed in buildings that are physically sound and safe. So-called "resource officers" (police) tend to have a higher presence in poorer school districts where professional social work staffing is inadequate. In my city there is a non-profit charter school that takes children from all walks of life, including many inner city minority students. The school does well academically. The school also has a small army of social work staff. There may be resource officer, but I never saw one. I counted fourteen social workers in a school that has small classes with an enviable teacher/student ratio. Their students are pretty much the same as the large public high school less than a mile away that has an unenviable teacher/student ratio and maybe two or three social workers for over a thousand students. Those social workers cannot possibly meet the same needs in the public school that the small army of social workers can at the smaller school. It is all about resources. Put another way, it is all about how we fund education.
4
my kids are in an extremely economically diverse school district, my kids (upper middle class) have excelled in school while the vast majority (70% of students received free breakfast and lunch) of their classmates are barely at grade level. same teachers, same classrooms, same books, there are no gifted or accelerated classes as every spare dime (schools have very similar per student funding as neighboring towns which are entirely upper middle class and amongst the best rated in the state) goes to trying to get the low performers up to state minimum levels. how much more are we supposed to give so that others can catch up?
8
@Think: I don't suppose we could cut back a bit on military spending and make the pie bigger?
2
There is plenty of room to cut from the military but as I mentioned the schools are not underfunded when compared to surrounding towns however the outcomes are drastically different. Schools can only do so much to make up for lack of parental involvement/support, you would need an unlimited budget to magically create new parents for each underperforming child
Living in LA, public schools are a big issue. The reality is, if you can, you move to a neighborhood or city where the schools are good. If parents can get involved, the schools are made better. No doubt some parents take things too far, but when you buy a house someplace because of the school and are told your kid can't go there because of redistricting, it might tend to make you a little, uh, unhinged.
Growing up in Pennsylvania, I went to public schools that were mixed economically and racially with a lot more blue collar than white collar families. The upsides were I learned to interact with all kinds of people, and I was one of the better students. The downside was there was a lot of bullying and fist fights. I got in my first of many fights in 4th grade. When I moved to another more affluent school district in 11th grade, I was no longer one of the top students, but I never had to get into another fight. I was shocked that no one fought in school or after school and there was much more collaboration than conflict.
While the first district experience might have toughened me up, I'd much prefer my son have the experience of the safer, more academically minded second district I attended as I'm sure most parents who could would.
10
Where I live in the bay area, new comers, with fatter wallets to express themselves with, have been pushing for and succeeding in acquiring new charter schools at an alarming rate. The new charter schools allow parents to neatly sidestep their civic duty to improve the quality of public schools in much the same way that their gated warehouse lofts allow them to exclude the residents of the neighborhoods they have chosen to live in. This "me and mine first" mentality has to stop. The lessons we pass on to our children about civic duty and public service create the future adult citizens and voters that they will become. Parents need to be reminded that all children are important, not only their children.
I privately suspect that giving children every possible advantage is more of a personal expression of living vicariously through children and less likely to benefit to the children directly as adults because of the limited social skills these kids learn. The monoculture of non-adversity and hyper-focus creates tone deaf adults that lack appreciation for the struggles of others and an under-appreciatiion of the networks of community advancement they have been placed in. Put simply, privilege compounds privilege without struggle and creates entitled children that lack situational awareness outside of their own narrow socio-economic community. It's a poor way to train future citizens about the importance of civic engagement.
5
Your point has merit, and it's eloquently put, but nobody cares about this part: It's a poor way to train future citizens about the importance of civic engagement.
I think people are becomingly increasingly libertarian.
1
Two illustration of what you describe.
In the wealthy Ladue, Missouri school district, there is one elementary school. Some 1st grade teachers are more highly regarded than others. There is intense jockeying/lobbying by parents to get their students assigned to the "best" first grade teacher. In one incident, a father simply stood in the "worse" classroom and refused to leave, despite threats to call the police, for several hours until the poor principal simply caved, and moved his student to the "better" teacher.
Another example are the on-line capabilities that allow parents to get real time reports of every quiz, homework assignment, class participation effort and midterm recorded by the teacher. It drives teachers, and the kids, absolutely crazy, and makes for a continuously pressure filled school year. No wonder so many kids show up to college full of neuroses.
4
“Entitled parents” aren’t being petty, costing time and school resources to protest a mere 10 extra minutes of commute time. The problem is much bigger in scope, and the stakes are much higher. I live in Atlanta, and the school district where my children attend school was home to the largest standardized test cheating scandal in our country. Our former school superintendent, Beverly Hall, was once named School Superintendent of the Year and rewarded with hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses on the basis of how she “improved” our city’s standardized test scores. It was all a lie. The “improvements” came from teachers changing wrong answers under the demands of administrators.
When our city was undergoing redistricting several years ago, parents were protesting sending their children to schools where educators, by falsifying test scores, cheated their own students out of much-needed funds for improving their struggling schools. Those children definitely deserved better than what they got by the participants in this scandal, but until those schools improve dramatically,no one should fault a parent for not wanting their kids to be redistricted to such a school.
The other point this opinion got wrong is this: parents and educators are not in opposition. We should all want the best possible education for all children, but a parent is responsible for his/her own children and needs to advocate for them the best way we can, and a good educator should want that too.
6
This statement:
"All parents want the best for their children, but a key goal of public education is to create citizens with a vision of a common good. "
informs that these authors are not interested in consistent educational levels - rather - they are interested in using the public education system for social engineering.
The criticism that the progressive left views schools as inculcation vehicles rather than education institutions, is thereby validated.
10
In most cases, parental involvement is what school districts want. They want a sense of community and team building among teachers, administrators, and parents. Accountability is viewed as a strength. Why would we ever "punish" parental involvement and interest - even if it is motivated by helping their own child? Boats (and schools) rise together or they sink together. Instead of focusing on limiting parental involvement, we should focus on increasing opportunity for all parents/families to get more involved in their children's education. There is something wrong sighted about discouraging initiative - even if some anger/frustration goes with the efforts.
6
In light of the current trends of suicide and mental health issues as an educator, I want my children to be confident and safe. I want them to like going to school. I want them to see their neighborhood friends and know that there is a bigger community who will protect them. I want them to fail and try again. These are the things that make our schools great.
Our families, all types of families, doing the best they can and nurturing our kids.
4
Did it ever occur to the authors that the capacity to organize and behave as these parents did is the reason they are also affluent? I am sure that an affluent background helps, but people born into an affluent family don't get to be well to do without the skills descried here. I am sure that idea would offend the authors.
As far as complaints that parents being vocal is bad for the school districts, this is a distinctly nutty perspective. This is what an engaged citizenry looks like. Sorry if it inconveniences our unelected bureaucrats.
Finally, the goal of education is not to "...create citizens with a vision of a common good." It is to educate children, ie, a service we get for paying taxes. Yet another reality-disconnected perspective from these authors.
21
That part got me too. Though I feel not enough Parents do think of other children, the idea that arriving in a well-organized way being bad rubbed me decidedly the wrong way.
1
Common good doesn't work in this case folks. The world is competitive. Parents can only influence outcomes, for the most part, of their own off-spring. In general, public education ranges from just okay, to it stinks.
Only three options exit for parents; private education, home-schooling, or becoming your child's advocate. So, people become the squeaky wheel for their kid. I don't see a particular problem with that.
12
Who would have guessed that affluent people with a sense of entitlement create problems for others?
Could it be that many people who seem to be anti-wealth are really more against this sort of thing? They might not care how much they have, but how they use it, especially when they do it to the detriment of other people.
6
I and practically everyone I know have used their connections, money and influence to be sure their children are placed in the best schools possible.
I have a real hard time understanding why people think this is wrong, why wouldn't you use every tool your disposal to be sure that your children had every opportunity possible? After all, they'll be competing with these very same children later in life. The competition starts young.
Everyone is looking out for them selves, that's the way of the world, anyone who thinks anything less is self-deluded.
I don't think the parents down the street lose much sleep as to where my child goes to school and frankly, I don't blame them, that's my responsibility, not theirs.....
7
Motivated parents are the foundation of education.
Be thankful for motivated parents.
Count your blessings.
15
"All parents want the best for their children, but a key goal of public education is to create citizens with a vision of a common good."
The first step for us educated parents is to drop the first phrase in this sentence. Or rather, we should re-formulate the concept:
"All parents understand that's what's best for their children is recognizing the role they may play in public education is to hold a view of their public education to create citizens with a common good."
My wife and I are middle-class, make modest but certainly above median family income, and we have thus far opted to send our child to the nearest public school, decline to take any 'gifted' program, and generally focus on learning to coexist with all the other children he comes into contact with. We fight the usual anxiety that we are foregoing opportunities for him with personal conviction that selfish parental decision making in education is corrosive to society.
My question to affluent, privileged parents who fret about their child's education is always the same: "You have XX degrees from YY elite colleges, you make ZZ income...yet you are this insecure about the future of your child? You really believe that without a Lamborghini of education, your child will be left to the wolves of a brutish, nasty world?"
Privilege is defined by its ignorance. Parents with privileged children operate out of obsessive fear for the fate of their child's *privilege*, not the child's *well-being*.
4
"Affluent, privileged parents who fret...." does not equal parents who are "insecure about the future of your child." What a generalization and false debate tactic.
The use of the word "fret" to describe parents who advocate is unnecessary.
5
Why is this news. or worthy of academic research? The fundamental ethos of our nation is work hard, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and reap the rewards. Reaping the rewards includes, to all economically successful parents, providing a safe, excellent education for their children.
The fundamental problem with our public education system is poor funding. Administrators don't have the resources to address the needs of children with physical or emotional challenges, or the needs of children from families who are uninterested or incapable of supporting their children in a way that will enhance their success in life.
Why, as a society, have we chosen to neglect the education of children from economically disadvantaged communities? The simple answer is that they have no political power. The ironic answer is that cynical politicians have manipulated ignorant and economically stressed people to vote against their economic self-interest for decades.
Our current President is a classic example of this. None of his policies benefit poor and working class people. Yet his hate mongering propaganda resonates with their frustration and fear. How bizarre is it that socially conservative Americans in the bottom 50% of the income/asset spectrum have become ardent supports of a philandering bully who has nothing but contempt for them?
6
So . . . . these educated and motivated people advocated for themselves, and availed themselves of their political options . . . and failed . . . and you STILL bemoan bias . . . because they "wasted the administrator's time"?
I submit that your study started with a conclusion, then derivatively explained it with a convenient reading of the data.
10
I would be very upset had I paid a premium price for a house, only to have my property value fall tens of thousands of dollars due to redistricting. How is that fair?
8
I've worked in public schools all my life. Would much rather work in "blue collar" districts where the parents respect education, but let the educators do their job....
5
Facebook and social media have also exacerbated these problems. Now, every time a parent is unhappy, they send out blasts on Facebook and rile up the whole school district. This was just not possible decades ago no matter how wealthy and educated the parents in a school district were. In my home district, there has been very high turnover among admins and teachers, which they blame on overly involved parents. This is so notwithstanding the very lavish pay and benefits packages in wealthy suburban NYC districts.
2
"Parents who secure their child’s admission to a “gifted” program, despite insufficient test results, undermine the legitimacy of these tests and programs." How?
If you let unqualified students into the gifted program then the teacher has to teach down to them or they flunk out.
5
and there's no room for the kid who was next in line for resources.
1
I think the question is how did they get into the program if they were unqualified.
Not much discussion about how fundraising from families is necessary for many schools to function. Since the recession of 2008, there was a lot of cutbacks on staffing which severely affected a lot of schools around here. If researchers look at how many schools depend on staff funded through foundations, I think I would take these findings much more to heart. As it is, it sounds like they're acting like a referee between two parties that have entirely different mindsets.
2
I'm from Newton MA. When I walked into math Junior Year I was greeted by a teacher who was clearly 8-9 months pregnant. Two weeks later, she was gone and a new teacher was in her place. He was, by all metrics, not fit for the job. He admitted that he was learning the material as he went. We later found out that he had never taught math before. He was so incompetent that the school removed him in February and replaced him. The new sub was better but still not as good as the other full time teachers in the department. When the end of the year tests came around, we took it and did very poorly.
If a group of "entitled parents" hadn't been active enough to realize something was wrong, we would have all failed. One "entitled parent" forced the school to give him the test scores for the year and our specific section was 20% lower almost across the board than the comparable sections. These "entitled parents" learned that the school, in order to save money, offered pennies to the long term subs they normally used. When no one took the offer they reached further and found an aide from within the school who took the job, even though he wasn't remotely qualified. The "entitled parents" eventually convinced the school to curve our section and offered remedial sessions over the summer. But it was too late. Virtually all of us were no longer confident in math, and one girl dropped out. And no one could move up to AP like many intended. Sometimes "entitled parents" do the right thing.
12
The phrase squeaky wheels get the grease applies here. Vocal parents and their children get more attention, period. Any parents with children that require additional support or attention know that staying quiet about progress or support for their children will just put them at the back of the line.
This is especially the case for children diagnosed with various forms of " disabilities" that qualify them for additional assistance.
3
I'm glad to read some of this, which is only the tip of the iceberg of entitlement in wealthy school districts.
A friend of mine was a teacher in a private school in Bel Air for 18 years. She recently quit because of the constant political battles that were going on between cowering officials and helicoptering parents.
The school, dependent upon the very wealthy and powerful parents, would consistently undermine the teachers to please the parental constituency. There was no authority left to the teachers, rather the students and the parents with support from the top would push grade inflation, academic p.c. ideals, and teaching based on ideologies combined with a constant fear of offending victim based groups of any gender, race, sexuality, handicap or self-invented disability.
Every text was forensically examined to make sure it passed the inspection of those whose job it is to guard preconceived ideas from debate. If an errant word or phrase should dare enter the classroom, it often provoked fury from parents and administrators.
She left the job that paid her over six figures because she spent sleepless nights wondering how she would defend herself against this nightmarish educational system. The loss will be felt by the children who will lose an experienced, insightful, talented and devoted teacher.
7
In the 1980s, as new homeowners in Newton, MA, (a town the articles author says is similar to the "Kingsley" district described in the article), my wife and I had a chance encounter with then mayor Ted Mann. We asked hum for reassurance that he would do everything he could to maintain the excellence of the Newton schools. His answer was, "The school system will always be excellent because you parents insist on it." While the Newton schools have many excellent teachers and dedicated professionals, it is parental involvement and willingness to pay high property taxes that enable our school systems to be excellent. What "matters is in the long run" is raising healthy well educated children!
2
@Saul Marcus: Would that be WILLINGNESS to pay high property taxes? Or would it be ABILITY to pay them? If "'what matters is in the long run' is raising healthy well educated children," isn't it the obligation of a good parent to advocate for good schools throughout the nation, rather than concerning himself with only his own children?
3
In a lot of ways, this is a good problem to have. Redistricting can and should have positive effects at surrounding schools in this case. However, there is certainly some racism at play when parents fight diversification of a school.
1
One key factor that this story slights is the tendency for building administrators to "cave-in" to unreasonable or unfair affluent parent demands. This falls most heavily on the classroom teacher whenever parents lobby for preferential treatment when students fail tests or don't submit assignments in a timely fashion. In my classroom experience, I saw many times the building administrators pressure the classroom teacher to change a grade after receiving a phone call from parents unhappy with the teacher's response to their child's missing assignment or failing test grade. As long as building administrators feel like they are targets swinging in the breeze neither worthy of protection from parents or from their own district administrators, they will knee-jerk to the tune called by the parents. Strong district leadership is required to counteract this issue, but that seems to be bred out of the selection process for district superintendents these days.
5
This piece is absurd. You know who pays for these schools, pays the teachers, pays for their pensions? Parents and taxpayers, via their hard work and labor. They have every right to demand the best for their children. To *demand* it, and to vote out anyone spouting this "equality" lie.
And if you don't like the fact that parents are involved, or if you don't like the fact parents are making demands on how their resources are expended for their children -- quit. Just leave. Parents and families don't want you. They don't want your socialist experiments. They don't want your lies about "equality." Just get out.
7
Quit what? Reading the NY Times? Leave where? Leave anywhere there's a public school system?
1
Wait until you have kids.
5
A story:
I live in Newton MA, an affluent suburb just west of Boston, full of highly educated people
My kids went to a small K-5 school that happened to serve an extremely affluent neighbor hood in Newton
One day, the head of the school committee invited parents to an after hours coffee , to talk
at this event, one parent said: I know people who would write a $100,000 dollar check, but they want it kept at this one small K-5; they don't want to share with the rest of Newton
I spoke up, saying, somewhat sarcastically, well, why don't you go to a private school
afterward several people thanked me, so I know this selfish view wasnt widely shared
1
Rich people only want poor people around when their toilet is being scrubbed and their lawn is being mowed.
If the children of the yard man and maid get an education, how will this low paid work get done?
1
Parents who believe that they are the center of the universe, who believe their children deserve more and better than anyone else's children, like thise who fought the re-districting in Kingsly, not only create stress for their children. They create obnoxious, self-absorbed, undisciplined brats who lack any sense of empathy or reality of the world. I've met many of these parents.
They and their offspring make me shudder for the future of society.
1
Don't know about entitled, but I'm reminded of a worst case boy I saw - his single mother was a drug addict who lied about everything, so to survive he learned to do the opposite of what an adult told him
to (over)compensate his grandmother treated him like a god and told him he could do whatever he liked
so in after-school childcare he was insufferable. While everyone else was sitting down for a meeting, he would stand up and march around proudly while everyone else thought he was an expletive deleted.
when an adult told him to do something he would do the opposite. I once saw him deliberately throw some food on the floor right in front of me. I asked him to pick it up. He shouted that he had never done it and that I was lying !
Other staff really wanted him banned - he was such a bad example to all the other kids. I spoke to the manager who told me 'this may the only place he gets to experience good behaviour'
Happy to report that after two years of after-school childcare his behaviour changed from insufferable to - playing well with others - OMG amazing – a case where bad stuff learned at home was replaced with good stuff learned at school.
4
The 'Entitled' only hurt schools ? Why is this news ?
1
The affluent first stack the deck and then they claim their children's success reflects a meritocracy. This is how people like Mr. Trump think they are superior. This is how our society remains mired in mediocrity. This is how the poor remain poor and the rich remain rich while they think both the rich and the poor have earned their station fairly. The human race is unsurpassed in its self-righteous stupidity.
4
The reporter seems to be using "entitlement" as a synonym for "lack of compliance." Are good parents the ones that just do what they're told?
8
There appears to be no connection between the thesis that wealthy parents take opportunities from poor students and the facts in this article. How did it get published?
6
how unfair! imagine using your professional skills and connections to try and improve your children's schooling. we should have a level playing field; no professional skills, connections, white privilege, money, cars or anything. oh wait, someone already tried that their names were stalin and castro; it turned out peachy for those populations (20 million dead; 15% of the population exiles). wanna try that here in america?
4
To ask parents to pursue collective, not individual benefits, is simply some kind of fantasy. And it's ok for the NYT to criticize parents who try to get their children into gifted programs when test results don't support admission, then criticize administrators in NYC's public school's because not enough blacks and latinos are in NYC's gifted schools.
4
Funding should not depend on where you live or district taxes. Funding should be equal across the board and depending on the needs of a specific school.
3
"I don't blame parents for trying to seek out and protect "good" school districts."
Sorry, but this sounds distinctly like the kind of language used by President Trump and his posse when speaking about immigrants and protecting what amounts to, when you consider it, white interests.
I have no answers. I just don't like that comment and its underlying protectionism . If parents want to isolate their children in pockets of what they consider 'good', pay for it and get your children into private school. That's it.
2
When all of that disruptive, immature behavior (from, let's not forget, the affluent parents, not the kids!) doesn't work, the entitled ones often decide to hurt schools in a simpler and even more hideous way: by simply foisting for-profit "private", corporate-welfare "charter", and sky-fairy "parochial" schools (each of which put interests besides child education first) on the area.
A lot of the time, that foisting occurs when the faux-schools simply buy their preferred parent body. Those protest signs outside NYC City Hall in favor of Failure ("Success") Academy, for example, were definitely NOT made by the parents.
With them in place, parents' whines that Public Schools Don't Work go from faux-schools' propaganda to self-fulfilling prophecy, as they siphon off the public-school tax dollars.
2
"but a key goal of public education is to create citizens with a vision of a common good. "
Why will putting students in inferior schools accomplish this? In my experience, the most civic-minded students come from the best schools.
2
So, the education establishment caves in and the parents are to blame. Seems the finger is pointing in the wrong direction here.
For true insanity, the authors should study the Palo Alto, California, school district.
8
Truth. Or, upper middle class parents of children who play organized sports.
Absolute madness.
4
I'm from a town similar to the one studied in this article. In fact the authors even mentioned it by name(Newton, MA). When I walked into math Junior Year I was greeted by a teacher who was clearly 8-9 months pregnant. She even stated on the first day that she was due within the next couple of weeks and wouldn't be back to at least January, but likely would be out the entire year.
I found this opinion piece disappointing. Educational equality is more than everyone having the lowest common denominator opportunity. It, at its best, is also about achieving and fostering highest potential. If school district administrators are not able to convey confidence that my child will achieve their highest potential, then of course I will challenge them. THIS IS THEIR JOB. If it takes 70% or 80% of the administrators time to do so, then bad on them. They are not particularly competent. Schools need to meet the needs of both high achievers and those who need an extra hand up.
4
Why do parents with education and means have to focus on anyone other than their own children's best interest? While it may be the goal of some people to limit inequality and foster "thoughtful civic engagement that considers collective, rather than simply individual, benefits.", the assumption that everyone must consider this the ultimate goal undermines free choice. Sounds utopian, in the creepy way.
7
Let us not deceive ourselves - being selfish for one's children is not any better than being selfish for oneself. A parent has responsibility to her child and also to the community she lives in.
In the end, the child will benefit from not just having a fancy degree but living in a better world.
5
Absolutely wrong, I feel you may be living in a different very different world than the rest of us
In NJ, we proudly fund poor districts through county taxes. (Abbott Districts} That money seems to not be addressing the problems of poverty in cities like Camden with new facilities alone. We need more funding diverted to Mental Health Professionals (and counselors and coaches) as a needed support system for poor children. Children struggling and failing without an adequate parental backstop.
3
I find this new drive to demonize parents who wish the best for their children disheartening. One of Democrat think tanks recently published a book in which middle class parents were chastised for caring about their children's progress because "this further disenfranchises the unprivileged".
A better strategy would be to encourage everyone to be better. To realize that the desire to help one's kids to go to safe schools with quality curriculum is not inherently bad.
7
In my 30+ year teaching career, I taught students with special needs in poor urban, poor rural, and both average and wealthy suburban districts. The students with the lowest incomes often had parents who cared the most, including those of undocumented families. Sometimes the low income families just didn't have the time to do all the right things.
The wealthy schools often had obnoxious, entitled parents who expected their child to be given a five star education even if it was at the expense of others. As a parent myself, I understood the desire for "the best" and I tried to deliver it the best I could.
But in the end I admired those parents (of any income, really) who were just doing the best they could. The biggest issue we should all address is the extreme inequality among schools. This is what our politicians must resolve. It is a human rights and civil rights issue.
6
What, in your opinion is the cause of extreme inequality among schools and how do you measure this inequality? Is it resources spent per child, outcomes based on average test scores or something else?
Are you concerned with inequality between schools in the same district, the same state or across states?
I was a teacher and principal in this type of district. The greatest problem is parents’ sense of entitlement on any issue that they feel could impede the ultimate success of their children.
Parents refuse to recognize or care about the needs of any other students or families, don’t understand that children are quite resilient, or that important learning lies within the varied experiences of a public education.
I found prejudice against placement in classes with special needs children to be amongst the greatest drivers of parental badgering and threats. They took an inordinate amount of time away from more important tasks.
It is what I miss least about my career. It also makes a strong argument for maintaining tenure protections for teachers and administrators.
5
The reason for this erroneous conclusion is that the authors are far more interested in"equity" than they are quality. Involved and demanding parents are critical to efforts to improve our schools and the opinions of these authors are nor helpful.
4
I am not sure you example of Newton Mass is a good one; it may be a town but its really more like a city in terms of population and number of schools. City school redistricting is always hard.
But you point seems to be that parents, who value education and pay lots of money in taxes, want what is best for their kids? Shocking.
2
In sixth grade, I was to be bused to a new school with all my classmates; my father wanted me to remain at the school next door, where a class was taught. My father won. After most of the school year had passed, I brought home a new friend. My mother determined he could not tell time. She called the school superintendent who explained that my peers had been stratified by learning ability, the smartest kids were bused to the new school. My class, next door, were "D" students (learning disabled) taught at a third grade level. None of this was explained to my parents, or any other parents, at the beginning of the year. It ruined my education when I lost that year. I never found out why they did this to me. I became a trouble maker in class because I was so bored, long before my parents discovered the truth. The next year, I was moved back with my peers, but was the class dummy. No one told me anything, until I was 70 years old and my mother finally explained what happened. Why should parents trust educators?
1
I'm sorry this happened to you, but your story underscores the central premise of this article. Sometimes it's the non-economic resources that matter. Did your parents even ask why you were assigned to be bussed to the new school? Asking a question is not necessarily about money, but courage and curiosity. You didn't ask any questions about your 6th-grade situation until you were 70 years old? Your whole experience proves the saying: People who abuse your rights aren't going to tell you your rights. Why should they? Parents who leverage all of their monetary and non-monetary resources for their kids understand the truth of that saying. They don't trust institutions or anyone else to advocate for their kids. Poorer parents will always be a the mercy of the institutions because they expect folks who abuse them to look out for them.
2
I'm so tired of these stories about the ways parents ruin schools by trying to "game" the system, or preserve segregation, or whatever. The truth is that our public schools are not serving the vast majority of students very well, and nothing has changed (but for the worse) in many school systems in decades. Nobody trusts the powers that be to make good decisions, and no one trusts the schools when they say that changes will be fine, or kinks will be worked out. Fix the schools. If that means more money, find more money. If that means abandoning the plan where every 10-year-old is in class with every other 10-year-old regardless of where they are academically or what their particular needs are, then switch to another model. If it is genuinely too expensive to educate every American child decently, then we need to reconsider what it is that public schools do, or admit that we're choosing other priorities. The current model pits parents and families against each other for limited resources. That sounds an awful lot like the model for suppressing civil rights change by creating divisions within groups. All of us parents should be complaining and marching and whatever else is needed to fix the problems.
3
Entitlement and privilege are often the problem. Often when a child gets in trouble in an affluent district these same parents are right there. skimming over handbooks and hiring legal advocates or doing anything in their possession to make sure consequences are minimal or revoked entirely. How can students learn when they know that their parents have their back no matter what.
3
Educators know that we can predict standardized test results based on zip codes. Since we use housing and zoning to make segregated communities where we concentrate wealth and poverty in enclaves, we get this result. Instead of being a portion of a school community, the wealthy are the school community.
2
It's amazing to me that we require professional degrees for our teachers and administrators, and then we have the chutzpah to stroll in and explain to them that they're doing it all wrong.
Parents in affluent communities need to support their teachers and administrators, or get out of the way. If you can trust your pediatrician, you can trust your superintendent.
4
I am a pediatrician. I went to a flagship state university. I remember the hours I spent studying organic chemistry while the education majors in my dorm were taking puff courses and partying. Sorry, there is no equivalence between education degrees and MD, JD, and STEM degrees.
5
As mentioned by a reader, "disruptive and disengaged students" drove me out of the teaching profession. Those whose stories I knew were traumatized before or during school. They deserved better. Supportive counseling and medical services were not available. Nevertheless, some dropped out in the belief that they were no good and had no future. Some had undiagnosed dyslexia. Still, as such youth enlisted my sympathy, I also understand parents who moved away from this school district. Children are only young once. Administrators, don't waste their lives.
4
I am really struck by some of the readers' comments. There are of course benefits to advocating for your children, something upper middle class parents do well. But there are drawbacks as well.
I assign Annette Lareau's book "Unequal Childhoods" every semester - both I and my college students see ourselves in the book, and realize how hyper-intensive parenting may not always be the best approach.
4
I’ve read this book and found it enlightening. Which parenting style do you feel is the best? It all depends on what you want for your children in adulthood doesn’t it?
Classrooms like ships in a convoy have to move at the speed of the slowest ship.
Parents perceive and to a certain amount it is true that children learn more of all the children in the classroom have similar goals and learning skills.
What seems like social engineering unless very carefully explained to parents and children is bound to cause unrest.
A "good" school is not necessarily the one with the most funding but it is one that has no daily disruptions by unruly students, teachers dedicated to teaching and parents who are involved with their child's education.
The Milwaukee school district has adequate funding but has no of the above conditions and the results are catastrophic.
4
This reminds me of another aspect of problems created by upper middle class parents and gifted students. When my son first began teaching, he was assigned mainly upper level and advanced math classes. At first, I thought "Oh, that's wonderful." Then, when he began discussing with me some of the problems he ran into, I realized that he wouldn't be getting the students who didn't care because they planned to drop out anyway, but he would be getting the students who had been allowed to grow up thinking they were God's gift to the human race.
2
Referring to poor parents: "They don’t spend enough time reading to children, monitoring their homework, attending school events or helping teachers."
What a scam. So schools expect poor parents to do what schools should do? What working parents have time to help teachers? My parents were not involved in any of that. My mother wouldn't think to set foot at the school. This was the 1950s-60s. We had plenty of books at home but also plenty of play time outside.
As a kid, there was no better feedback than getting my homework returned and seeing a red "X" where I made a mistake. As a parent in the 80s-90s, I couldn't believe the teacher's expectation that I "review" my child's homework before she submitted it. I refused. As a working mom I also had no interest in school events and classroom volunteering.
Yet somehow our now-adult child is a college grad with a great job and career, and no damage from the horrors of mom not helping in the classroom.
5
After reading today’s Opinion “How Entitled Parents Hurt Schools”, I was taken back to the nightmare of Berkeley Unified Schools, which my children attended K-12. My husband and I both held masters degrees from Ivy League schools, had successful careers and were devoted parents. However, none of that prepared us for educating our children with the “progressive” elites of Berkeley. We did not go in believing that our children deserved the best teachers, placement in gifted programs, etc., just as the article describes. In contrast, the so called “entitled” parents made demands in exchange for keeping their kids in public school. They certainly had the means to send their children elsewhere, which most white affluent parents did. Many believed that keeping their kids in public school gave them a badge of honor. They could never be called racist. They considered themselves to be political activist. However, their so called activism was self serving and helped maintain the institutionalized racism that has become impossible to undo. Other students paid the price for the unequal access to limited resources. Yes, I am cynical, bitter and angry but it took me years to recover from what I called the Berkeley Apartheid School system. I tell myself that my children are better people because of the struggles they faced, not at the hands of the so called “marginalized community” but at the hands of the the Berkeley Elite.
6
I have a hard time believing this brouhaha was over just 10 minutes of extra travel time. No doubt the authors left out the real reasons the parents were upset, to make the parents seem unreasonable. Hint: the authors later call the parents opportunity hoarders--which gives away the fact that one school clearly offers more opportunities than the other.
7
I live in an affluent community with high test scores at all levels of K-12. Home prices are high. Our children attended public school exclusively.
In spite of our excellent schools, over many years I saw numerous parents switch their children to one of many private schools in the greater area. There may have been a variety of reasons for these decisions. The parents could have attended private schools themselves or maybe they wanted smaller class sizes or an immersive French language-based school. Most of these parents were positively and respectfully involved in school volunteering and beyond. Affluent parents have choices and will used them, fair or not. Sometimes, if parents see that schools are not up to a particular educational standard for their child, they will move them to an environment where the child may have a better overall learning (and possible social) experience. It’s a loss for public education in my community to lose the precious tax dollars when a parent moves their kid from public to private school. But, I don’t blame them.
6
Liberal attack on merit, hardwork, involved parenting and overall success continues. What would you rather have, broken, poor, and stressed single parent families, or successful two parent households with ingrained delayed gratification skills. However, involved successful parents can and do challenge entrenched public union mafias which govern most school districts. So, no wonder they will prefer poor parents which they can boss over.
3
But ... there's nothing in this article about merit, hardwork [sic], or overall success. It's about how "involved parenting" can be perverted by parents who believe their children are more important than the children of others.
Literally nothing here is political.
2
Yes, it is a shame that some parents volunteer, contribute, and supply their kids with lunch. As a teacher in the Los Angeles school system, THIS DID NOT OCCUR!
6
This piece is simplistic. And it is full of contradictions. While I agree with their overall premise re the concerning imbalance among public schools exacerbated by the chasm by class issues, using an example of a clearly absurd suburban all-white privileged district wasting everyone's time and energy creates a straw man. Of course those parents are insane. The situation on the UWS is completely different with much higher stakes, greater nuance. And I note that the authors avoided adding to the proposals floated re the Specialized High Schools, despite the fact that you could argue that such proposals precisely are aimed at creating a system that serves the entire population at the "expense" of people who, whatever you think about them, are focused on advocating for their particular kid. This is an important, troubling topic to bring up, one we need to talk about and find concrete ways to improve, but it is far more layered and challenging than these researchers care to admit.
3
Another far-left extremist idea to punish the parents of children who - could you believe this? - actually want to learn and want to excel in academics.
5
Or maybe teachers and administrators should be allowed to spend most of their time on education, not petty gripes about 10 minute bus rides.
6
Agreed. Teachers and administrators should spend more time on teaching and less on social engineering and redistricting.
Having witnessed such issues at the local level; one side arguing for a "public good" equalizing outcomes,the other for "individual opportunity" according to ability.. the winner usually was "equality". Teachers unions supported this...in a district where 40% of teachers sent their own kids to private school...a truth that must be hidden for the common good apparently.
2
Those same parents age into being more Kochs, Princes, DeVoses
or Libertarians, etc, same assumption of priviledge, same lack of acceptance, same needing someone else to blame, same denial of reality.
1
I am a college administrator and professor. We call these parents "helicopter parents." The worst of them are called "stealth bomber parents." They make life miserable for everyone at the college. It's one symptom of Baby Boomer culture where children have taken center-stage. A parent's worth is determined by their child's accomplishments. So teacher or administrator beware. Don't you dare stand in the way of little Susie's possible achievement!
7
I grew up in a poor family, and I mean poor. My parents had a 4th grade educatio, and never went to a school meeting or talked to my teachers. Whatever teachers said was right. I was the valedictorian of my class and have 3 degrees. Children don't need to be coddled to be succeessful.
7
A finely crafted explanation of Trump's victory in 2020.
2
The best public schools have a strong PTA. This is the trade off. In our school district, the worst teachers are shuffled over to the elementary school with a weak PTA. The school district is not strong enough to fire these teachers. Why should my kids suffer because the administration will not do their job?
1
Here we go again. Woo the rich and the entitled. Parents are involved in kids education - it is discriminatory. Instead of asking parents in poorly performing school district why education isn’t good, beat up the schools doing better and bring them down. Sad. Let’s pull all down so all will be equal. Again, what fraction of the authors of NYTimes send their kids to poorly performing schools? And, what fraction come from well off families? Surprise! There is cognitive dissonance. Say one thing, act in another way.
7
Parents have other choices if their districts zone their kids into a low quality school. They can always eat the cost and send them to private or one of them quit their job and try home school. What these socialistic-minded administrators don't realize is that good parents will always put their kids first. While I think it is sad and awful that we have an effective monetary caste system in this country, I also think that those trying to do good should work with parents and not against them. If you're going to force a bunch of kids from school A to go to school B, you should also move some of the top teachers and resources at the same time.
You've assumed that this is not the case and there are many instances where there is only one parent or one of the parents has a job that requires travel, etc. It is not always possible to home school and even fewer times when it is desirable.
2
What I meant was that these educators risk undermining the public education system with their antagonism towards parents.
Hard to make generalizations...but...
Those who need help the least...tend to get the most help...
Those who need help the most...often get much less than they need...
3
You are only ever so lightly scratching the surface of entitled parenting in affluent schools.
7
What a shocker! Parents want the best for their children and don’t want to be a part of a social experiment!
11
Bullies are bullies and they produce more bullies who bully. If they are rich they just cause more damage. No wonder our society is falling apart.
2
Further Studies Are Needed to learn what's what and to better assess the scale and weight to give to the claim of the reality of such parental involvemnts.
Perhaps a motivating concern has been overlooked (or maybe I missed it.) The authors mention all of the schools in the district were strong, so preferring a particular school due to academic superiority seems unlikely. Perhaps the parents simply didn't want their middle schoolers to have to make new friends and be separated from the school friends they had developed so far.
3
As a former teacher in a minority district, I understand the parent’s concern. The issue may not be race, but behavioral and attitudinal. If disruptive students, or intelligent students who feel working in school is “acting white” enter a classroom, the classroom atmosphere changes for the worst.
2
When I have kids, they will not be pawns in class war or sociological experiments. I will either send them to private school or move to Westchester or Fairfield. I won't send them to public school in NYC. I care about other people's children in the abstract, but my concern for my own children will override any political ethic I have. I will give my kids the best education that my money can buy and that my privilege will enable. To my mind, school is to get you into an elite college. The endgame is always Ivy or similar. Like most people, I might talk like a liberal, but when it comes to my kids and education, I am ruthlessly selfish.
1
And that is the way it should be. It is in line with human nature. Liberal agenda should push towards having all parents believe along these lines, or they should not be parents. Welfare polices favoring single parenthood should be disbanded.
Good schools - bad schools. How good schools are is often determined by how rich or how poor the people living in the district are, as schools are mostly locally funded (about 50% local, 45% state and 5% elsewhere here in New York state).
In all other Western countries education and schools is a federal mandate, and schools are entirely paid for by the federal government. Schools have the same curriculum and resources wherever they are because of that, and there is no clamor from parents to live in good school districts, as all schools are good. And if a school is not good it gets closed, and another new school put in it's place.
Only in the US schools are a local responsibility. That causes most of the issues discussed here.
5
"Parents should think about what matters in the long run and reflect on whether their actions might be contributing to greater inequality."
No, parents should be reflecting on no such thing. Parents should be thinking solely on what benefits their own children. Deliberately giving up a benefit for their own child, or sacrificing them in any way in the name "reducing inequality" is to be negligent in their duties as parents. And please hold false rationalization that parents who sacrifice their own kids in the name of their liberal ideology are somehow helping them by making society better. Any incremental improvement in society will be miniscule in comparison to even the slightest direct advantage forgone.
8
I was born in 1964. I went to a public elementary school in Queens. When I was in 6th grade, they did an experiment whereby they mixed the advanced learning group (of which I was one) with the slower kids. The advanced kids got a few hours per week of separate instruction in a different classroom. I recall that the times when the slow kids and the advanced kids had to learn together in the same classroom, nothing got done. There was simply too much of an intellect gap between the advanced kids and the other kids. I also recall that in the 6th grade, one of the slow kids in my class had a temper tantrum and threw a chair across the room. Yes, all these decades later I still have VIVID memories of being terrified during that incident. So let's not pretend that "entitled parents" are the source of the problems.
10
I wish this article had given some estimate of the numbers of households in each school's service area and the number of households represented by one or both parents at meetings, and/or by other contact that expressed a preference or opinion that influenced the plans.
When the numbers are given, it can provide a sobering insight about the "community" that is involved in the discussion. It is frequent that a small proportion is at the meetings and drives the discussion toward a conclusion that benefits them, often without the support of a majority and sometimes in opposition to the majority.
Even without the numbers, I agree with the conclusion that individual parents drive school decisions with intentions to maximize their own personal benefits. That can and frequently does make a mess for many other children and tax payers across the community.
Here is another issue I am growing weary (read angry) at.
EVERYONE wants the best education for their children.
So, let's start where it is broken:
Get lead out of apartments, including old water pipes and flaking paint
Get children tested and fitted for eyeglasses.
Whirlpool did an amazing service by providing washers and dryers for kids too embarrassed to go to school because of dirty clothes.
Set clear expectations every year on day with a contract and hold both sides to that contract. No bullying, no singing to yourself during class, etc. The curriculum for the year, in detail (not lesson plans, curriculum).
Start tracking. Some kids love school and go on to college, others, also smart, would prefer to be working with their hands. This society needs them both and needs the professions to be equally respected. Some kids can't be engineers or electricians or plumbers and there needs to be respect for them as well: chefs and artists are important.
Yes, there are some parents out there who try to bully administrations but sometimes there are administrations that need push back.
Stop blaming and start educating our kids from day 1 of school.
NYC wants to destroy the top schools with SHSAT entrance because it is far easier than doing what needs to be done starting in kindergarten. It is disgraceful. And soon there will be court fights because they are not attending to the needs of smart kids.
We can fix education because we have to.
6
My dad is a teacher, my mom is a superintendent of schools and my daughter is an elementary teacher. The problems of affluent parents in this article are first world problems. Meanwhile poor parents are still dealing with third world problems. Transportation, for instance. My mother has been a superintendent in wealthy school districts where every child is put on a bus route, even if they live across the street. As the superintendent of a small city school district in New York, on the other hand, she struggled to find enough money to extend busing to even those who were mandated by law to receive it. There was an 85% poverty rate and most parents didn't have cars, meaning single moms had to pack up their entire family to walk their school children every day, twice a day. And it's hard to maintain a job when your child has no way home unless you pick them up at 2:45, especially when you work until 5. And no, the schools had no after-school programs for elementary children. The wealthy district, on the other hand, provided school space for an enrichment program, that charged the parents. and provided enrichment programming until 6 p.m. The deck is thoroughly stacked against children and their parents in poor school districts.
5
The arguments made by the authors go against the idea of hard work, sacrifice, and effort. The objective of public education is to help students in those schools, not other schools or districts. Based on the poor arguments made by the authors, the next question is where do you stop? Do you keep re-districting until every school in the area represents perfectly balanced racial and socio-economic households and equally average (weak) outcomes?
Should we do the same with employment decisions? Tell an organization that they should not hire based on quality but based on getting a balance of racial and socio-economic employees?
1
You are confusing employment, which is the exchange of labor for pay, and education, which is a service.
How dare they want the best education for their children? Isn’t that outrageous?
How about this - professional administrators and educators establish and foster a system that includes parents as partners in their children’s education, not merely as cake sale adjuncts to the professionals.
How about this - our society placing a high value, and adequate resources, toward providing an exellent education in all schools, for all children.
3
1) Missing from this article is some sense of the objective disparity in quality between the districts involved. That makes all the difference in evaluating these parents' response.
2) Someone should tell these involved but complaining parents that the presence of their children may lift the quality of the new school directly, and surely will lift its quality indirectly, as their involvement will follow their children.
3) Respondents don't seem to see that the article is about redistricting and not about bussing. It sounds like most students travel to school on buses and that routes would need to change.
In case you missed it, this wasn't a 'redistricting' issue at all. Both high schools were in the same district, and there was no suggestion of disparity in the quality of the two schools. This was literally 'some of the kids in this school, which is overcrowded, need to go to this other school, which isn't overcrowded' and would have increased their bus rides by 10 minutes.
3
Don't expect schools to fix the larger problem of wealth inequality.
Many countries such as Canada where I am from start with urban planning that mixes upper middle and low class housing, and centralize funding at the provincial level which results in fewer glaring discrepancies between districts that drive so many US education disputes.
5
So now parents willing and able to participate and actually HELP their kids learn are a problem? Please. Keep the focus on the parents who are totally disinterested - that's where the vast majority of the problems come from.
8
Some people work very hard, try very hard to earn higher incomes precisely so that they can move to upscale neighborhoods -- of parents like themselves -- who can lean on the local school boards and administrators to provide their offspring with educational standards of which they approve. They will continue to do this. If impeded they simply will work to eliminate school taxes and public schools and sent their children to private schools. That is human nature, and these are determined, quite effective people. Don't doubt it! They did not get where they are by being passive. They also are not necessarily WASPS. That is a myth. Take a closer look at whose kids attend those schools and who tend to be the valedictorians way out of proportion to their numbers. Let the facts speak for themselves.
4
The article provides only general information on the protests of parents without any details of their reasoning. E.g. The travel time was supposed to be longer for about 10 min but parents where refused the bus trips to measure the actual time. What did they find on their own? What were the arguments of pediatricians? I know from our experience how difficult it may be to move a kid to a different environment where she breaks away from her existing friends and has to make new friends. These are just examples of problems that are not addressed in the article. If any problem is multiplied by a number of kids affected, it becomes a burden for the whole community. All I learned from the article is that these parents were bad because they made difficulties for the administrators.
2
I come from a long line of public school educators and I want public schools to work. The trouble is, these systems are far too enmeshed in local politics to ever be as good as they could be. Local school board members are not educators and are generally more interested in who gets the high school roofing contract than in any educational issue. Nevertheless, outside the big cities the public schools are not too bad since local voters and parents are relatively homogeneous and not often at each others’ throats. In big cities, however, schools run into the vicious racial politics that dominate every issue, especially including schools. Most city politicians, black and white, are not well-informed and often outright venal. In Philadelphia, most black politicians seem not really interested in racial integration; they just want to prevent mostly-white schools from appearing to be better than mostly black schools. Schools in racially integrated neighborhoods generally become mostly black by manipulation of attendance zones and busing. Hopeful liberals who move into integrated neighborhoods soon find that the schools are problematic and they move somewhere else inside the city and mostly to the suburbs. From recent Times articles, it appears that the same phenomenon is unfolding in Brooklyn and the Upper West Side, along with the special-schools issue. Education is by nature an elitist thing. It can’t thrive as a victim of the evanescent interests of local politics.
1
We have forgotten the collective reason for public education.
Public education is the cornerstone of a democracy. One has to learn how to be a citizen. Some families include it in their children's upbringing but many do not. Some public school systems concentrate so much on STEM education that they leave civics to one side.
Parents' concern for their children frequently focus on skills that will lead to an education or a job that will support that leaves civics to one side.
My son attended a very highly regarded public school system, one of the best. We couldn't afford to buy a place but could afford to rent as long as he needed the schools. Some of the parents were obnoxious and pushy but the faculty were fabulous and extraordinarily supportive. The school supported civics and community involvement while many of the parents did not. My son--got what he needed and we ignored the pushy parents.
The result? A multilingual adult now completing a medical residency in one the country's major medical centers.
High quality public education for ALL students is the cornerstone of the future, however we have to finance. I am willing to pay extra taxes to make sure that happens. A big thanks to teachers that survive this educational maze!
2
I am a 23-year educator, now a school administrator. All of us must work together so our children receive the best education possible. Our system will only get better when two things happen:
1) School administrators make the best decisions; and
2) Parents let us make those decisions. Remember: Making decisions is what your school boards hired us to do.
Yes, your children are precious. And this is going to make some of you mad, but my teachers and I know more about educating them than you do. We're not perfect, and administrators like myself must do a better job of holding teachers and each other accountable. But even when we make bad decisions, it's because you taught us to second guess ourselves. I don't pretend to know more than my doctor or my mechanic. I don't crawl through my favorite diner's kitchen with a flashlight, nor do I get snoop around behind the counter at the bank. But when my occupation comes up in conversation with total strangers, the lecture about "what's wrong with kids/schools/teachers today" is inevitable. When I meet a surgeon or a cop, I *ask* them about their work, without commenting about how they can do it better. I'm paid with tax money you say? Great. I pay for fighter planes, but I don't tell get to tell Goose and Maverick what to do.
I love these kids, and most parents I've met in my career have been amazing. But everyone—parents, and business and community leaders—needs to realize that we take this sacred trust seriously. We got this.
5
As parent who had a child in a highly rating public school district (just switched to private), the quality of the teachers is very mixed, with some really good ones and some who go through the motions are, quite frankly, not too bright. Telling me to rely on these people without question is more than obtuse to the reality of even a top public school.
School administrators do not make the best decisions. In our public school district, poor performing teachers are shuttled out of the top elementary school to the lowest performing one. WHY? they will not fire a teacher. The top elementary school has parents who scream with a bad teacher. The lowest performing school is Title 1 - not a peep is heard. Parents have a right to provide input.
I've also found teachers and school administrators to be among the most defensive of professions. If parents are raising a ruckus, it's because the parents are entitled, not because the teachers and administrators are doing a bad job, right? Our school system has such profound problems, that it's difficult to put blind trust in teachers and administrators. On the other hand, if things ran well, parents would probably be willing to step aside. Trust is earned, not obligatory.
2
The issue here is not that the parents mobilized, as much as the issue that grabbed their attention. Their kids are being asked to move to a new school, likely with a number of their friends and classmates. Their homes, family situation, outside activities, and other surroundings will remain unchanged. Instead of looking at this as an opportunity for the students to gain a small amount of flexibility, meet new friends, teachers, etc., these parents are worried about the damage that such a move might cause to their children. This article missed an important point, which is that these parents may be doing their children more harm by teaching them first, that something as benign as moving to a new school may have a negative impact on them and second, by attempting to protect them in ways that simply will not be realistic for them in the outside world. If you wonder how we could be raising a generation on snowflakes, look no further.
6
Let's face it. Too many of today's parents are simply neurotic. They want to live their children's lives for them and keep them wrapped in a little cocoon. The children are involved in so many activities they have no time to actually think about life. They might as well be dogs on leashes. These poor kids grow up so sheltered they turn. into overly sensitive neurotics who need safe rooms to escape the most innocuous things. The parents don't understand that the most important thing they can do for their children is to let them make their own decisions and fight their own battles.
3
Money is power! This theater is played out every day in our government. It is advertised and aggrandized in the media. It is celebrates in our colleges and in the halls of justice. Why not in education as well. It works everywhere else. How do you plan to stop a mega-buck mom from insisting that here special little Einstein, is gifted. Good luck changing that entitled mind... We did it to our selves...
1
Money surely is power. The only power in this country.
Money is also blindness, convincing these ego-blinded parents its time to haul out the lawyers, to tie up their schools for months to save little Johnny the trauma of a ten minute bus ride.
These people are so self-involved and status aware that I'm sure one desperate fear is that, if their child moves to a different, equally good school, they will be seen as being among the losers, and their lives will be ruined.
Never mind the ridiculous charade of being a 'caring parent', the point here is to win regardless of the cost to the school or the students.
1
Studies have shown that kids raised by entitled/helicopter parents often grow up to be neurotic, dependent, anxious adults. Parents, please, step away from your offspring. Your nonstop doting is actually damaging your children for life.
4
Hogwash......this article demonizes the successful parents and blames them for their achievements. I'm not buying it.
I don't feel the least bit ashamed of making sure my child has the best education in the best district. Period.
I'm about as concerned with the children of lower income parents as they are with mine.
12
And that, in a nutshell, is a big part of what is wrong with the U.S. We all need to be concerned about everyone's education and health and well-being. (And I'm saying this as one of those over-involved upper-middle-class parents in a good school district.) For better or worse, our lives are intertwined. I, for one, am as frightened of an under-educated, easily manipulated populace as I am of a shallow-thinking administration focused on the short term. I joke with my kids about "when the revolution comes...," but it's not so much of a joke anymore.
3
But Reader, how much would you be willing to compromise your own child's educational opportunities to improve the opportunities of others?
Or what if your kid didn't have to bear this burden at all? What if ... just maybe ... we could trust our educators and elected officials to actually provide decent education for all? Imagine that.
1
Does school safety factor into parents' opinions regarding which schools their children attend? This article does not address this.
1
As the song says, "every child had pretty good shot, to get at least as far as his old man got. Something happened on the way..."
Decency and civic-mindedness go out the door when your kids are at risk in an increasingly insecure, unequal world.
2
Not all well-educated, caring parents are "entitled", just as not all poor parents come in and threaten teachers with physical violence. There are some in both groups that DO do these things, though!
Most educated parents want a good education for their children. They choose where to buy a house, based on this desire. They should certainly have the right to do this, just as they do to buy a house in an area with less crime and better municipal facilities. THey most likely also buy better cars and better others things as well. Is this somehow wrong?
Most poorly performing schools receive financial aid which makes the per-student dollar amount far greater than it is at highly successful schools. No one is complaining about this! In my city, the most successful schools receiver less than HALF of the per-pupil contribution that failing schools receive.
Parents who have an "entitled" mind-set will be the same way no matter where their children go to school. Just ask the administrators at any elite boarding school. But these are a small number - as annoying as a single mosquito in ones bedroom at night - but just as harmless.
This is nothing more than class warfare against suburbs which have their own city government and school system. Wealthier neighborhoods in a city school district are not getting tons of "extras" - they experience the same cut-backs as other schools in the district.
6
The authors undermine their argument by introducing the term ‘opportunity hoarding’. It is literally the most natural thing in the world for a parent to fight for the welfare of their offspring. The last sentence is a perfect example of how many lefties (I am one) manage to repel potential friends. How off-putting to be lectured to ‘model thoughtful engagement that considers collective, rather than simply individual, benefits.” I will wait to hear how the authors have surrendured their teaching positions at Penn and SUNY, so that they are available to less priveledged individuals.
8
The prevailing political economy's emphasis on market principles in the public sphere has unleashed competitive mommies to disrupt the equality of American public education for all. Their increasing affluence as members of the economy's winners has provided them the dominance to ensure only their children receive the maximum benefits of public expenditures on childhood education, while their peers without market power have to settle for fewer resources for their children, while working more just to maintain a median wage lifestyle. This class division is being used to deny all of America's children a good education, which they deserve. Tax payers must demand their inputs be distributed equally, and not just to the mommies with the time and resources to lobby for their precious offspring.
1
Your argument is not supported by facts. Parents of a specific school are the tax base for that school. They do not get extra taxpayer funding. In fact, in NYC the lower performing schools get a disproportionate amount of public funds. Further, parents donate their time and hard-earned money to support their school. By your arguments, they are committing a crime by doing so. Parents of a good school are not taking away from other schools, they are simply buttressing the quality of their own. This should be encouraged, not scolded.
2
Not a word about the NYC situation regarding the Mayor's proposed racial quotas for elite high schools. Currently admission is strictly by test results. That yields a low income student body that fails to match the racial percentage population breakdown of the city. Parents of qualifying students, many who are immigrants lacking English, are up in arms but they are powerless against the Democratic Party. Rather that push free tutoring to students who score below others the Mayor wants to shift to admission by race!
7
These people do their jobs as parents. Maybe other people should do the same.
5
I bet the vast majority of the parents are Liberal Democrats who voted for Hillary or Bernie. I'm familiar with the type. The mystery town, is it Duxbury MA
1
This piece clearly sums up liberal attitudes toward most of our pressing social issues. Blame people who are competent and choose to actively participate in our democratic institutions because others don't achieve as positive of an outcome. Of course what both the overbearing entitled parents and the disengaged poor parents share is a sense of selfishness that puts their needs ahead of their children's.
4
Wow, the NYT is on a roll today. From reading this and the editorial about NY's specialized high schools, one would believe that every problem in our public schools is caused by either (i) wealthy parents who care too much about their kids' educations or (ii) poor Asian parents who care too much about their kids' educations.
Of course, if highly-engaged parents are such a problem for public schools, maybe the authors here would prefer it if they enrolled their kids in private schools instead, and withdrew their considerable social and economic capital from the public school system entirely.
13
That's a great distillation of the NYT's embarrassing editorials today.
- Student's shouldn't study too hard or you'll make others look bad.
- Parent's shouldn't sacrifice your time and money because you'll make other schools look worse by comparison.
The NYT believes in a utopia of average education and lowest common denominators.
3
In this article, I keep going back to the beginning describing the poor, disadvantaged children of parents who do not monitor their homework, participate in school activities etc. I am 70 years old and grew up in a small farming community where the 2nd and 3rd grades shared the same classroom and teacher. My father was a physician and we belonged to a country and "in-town club in a nearby town of 75,000. I suppose we were considered upper middle class. My parents never, I mean never monitored my homework, participated in school activities because there were none and were completely uninvolved in the school. It was just three blocks from home and convenient. When I was a senior in high school I transferred to a high school in the larger town which meant my parents paid tuition since they did not pay property taxes in that town. Somehow, I managed to attain a Master's Degree in Social Work from Boston College all without any parental attention paid to my elementary education. Amazing isn't it??
3
What the authors describe is a current, typical example of our democracy in action. These parents clarly know their rights, are very knowledgeable and skilled with access to both information and resources. They have, simply, used every legitimate tool they had to obtain the outcome they desired. In a nutshell, these parents copied the playbook of the left. They have learned, as all of us have, that when you don't like a particular outcome you should vociferously complain, relentlessly decry injustice, claim irreparable harm to vulnerable innocents, incessantly use the courts to deny victory to your opponents and overturn any political loss, sue in every venue possible (local, State and Federal courts), compel local politicians support your cause, create compelling visual events that become media spectacles. Create false narratives to support your point of view. Drive that narrative until you either win your view or completely destroy the process.
5
Why is this the playbook of the left when right now every single day all day long we hear 'false narratives" from the White House. The POTUS is supposed to be a model for all Americans, so using law suits to keep from paying companies who provided the work, and to keep women from talking about their affairs, and to make sure anyone with less resources cannot fight back is a strategy that our POTUS firmly believes in. And now the party of family values has no problem supporting candidates who have a clear record of racist, unethical, and immoral behaviors that they are proud of - it is not the left who ignore their own beliefs simply to get more power. Maybe it is time to stop being divided and focus on the actual impact of policies being enacted.
Welcome to segregation in the 21st century! Call it what it really is - parents don't what their children in the same classroom as children in poverty. This happens EVERYWHERE - in redistricting meetings in Richmond VA a parent decried that they didn't want children from an apartment complex attending "our" school. It won't get any better until administrators and school boards bring this to light - thank you for this article.
6
My boys attend public schools in a very middle class town. They do well academically and are liked by their teachers. I have no doubt they will move on to college and become productive adults. I grew up upper middle class and went to boarding school. After witnessing the reality of boarding school life (very rich entitled kids doing drugs like there was no tomorrow), I purposely raised my kids among the middle class and not so fortunate. No mercedes, no trips to Europe, no designer clothes, etc. To be very frank, I wish I grew up like they are. They are totally unimpressed by wealth and bling. It's refreshing.
20
Yep--I had the same experience in boarding school and have made life choices for my children to expose them to multiple classes and races. They do go to Catholic school, not public, though.
1
The article write, "Parents are concerned for their own children, while educators look to the success of all students."
In my experience, many teachers and educators are not looking for success of all students but only a few. It is in these cases that parental involvement is essential. It would be interesting to see how valid the report's findings are and whether they will stand up to independent review. Parents are essential for ensuring a good education.
10
The essay begins by name-calling parents who want the best quality education for their children. I find that foolishly self-defeating since the point is for each parent to want the best for a child. The stereotyping here strikes me as unproductive.
14
A Long Island school district went through this redistricting issue a couple of years ago. The district's school population is declining so one school had to be closed. You would have thought the world was coming to an end: parents wanted emotional-support counselors to come in so their precious darlings would make it through the transition; fight after fight went on; meetings were packed, bus routes timed, petitions raised and so on. It was absolutely ridiculous.
As an educator in the Upper East Side, I see entitlement dynmaics play out constantly.
A Parents' Association that "suggests" donations of nearly one thousand dollars, paid in installments, may furnish much needed teachers or resources if the DOE cuts a budget. But it also gives families the feeling that they can ask for specific teachers or classrooms for their children. Administrators are emboldened to flout the rules, such as denying children with ESL status entry into their schools for fear of lowering the all-important test score. Zoning is as closely guarded as our national borders to weed out "undesirables." Public schools are run like quasi private schools. It's yet another way of perpetuating separate but equal.
15
Whether we like it or not. virtually all disagreements boil down to either "money" or "power." In this instance, money is power. Countless middle- and high-income families resent their tax dollars being funneled away from their own children and supporting children who have little chance of improving academically but have to included or mainstreamed into regular classrooms. This practice diverts the teachers' attention away from the vast majority of students and slows down their learning.
3
Sadly, the parents who should recognize themselves in this piece won't acknowledge their role in protectionist behavior. I'd also love to read from the researchers how districts can proactively position themselves to be prepared for pushback from mobilized parents.
9
So on the one hand you have poor parents; they "don’t spend enough time reading to children, monitoring their homework, attending school events or helping teachers."
And on the other hand, you have entitled parents: they question teachers and others in authority, form committees, advocate for their children, and demand answers.
So it would appear that the ideal parent reads to their child, monitors their homework, attends school events, helps teachers, never questions teachers or others in authority, doesn't form committees, doesn't advocate for their child as an individual, and never demands an answer.
Good luck.
39
“A number of researchers have described, for example, the various ways that parents, generally upper middle class, monitor and scrutinize teachers and principals, which can diminish educators’ authority. Parents who secure their child’s admission to a “gifted” program, despite insufficient test results, undermine the legitimacy of these tests and programs.”
This was a constant issue according to the upper middle class school district my children attended. Finally the school district chose to initiate an independent study of the situation. After it was completed red faced administrators had to report that it turned out that the problem wasn’t entitled parents trying to get their kids into the program. It was the school district’s refusal to accept that a district like this might have as many as 15 percent of the kids who were truly gifted and were artificially keeping kids out.
10
The taxpaying parents organized and lobbied. Counterarguments were made. A plan was implemented and the system worked. What's wrong with that?
13
Active and engaged parents. School officials spending time address community concerns. Looks like community activism. Democracy in action. Would it be better if school officials were not held accountable?
27
Hi Michael,
You, and several other commentators here, missed the point of the article: class and class privilege is a critical factor in our society, and drives who typically gets to play "democracy" in our society.
1
So now left gets to decide on who gets to play democracy?
I see engaged parents and community activism. You and the authors see class privilege. This is called a difference of opinion. Maybe you are missing the point?
2
Redistricting, when the two schools are equivalent and traveling time is minimally affected, is a non-issue which has just brought out parents with too much time on their hands.
It would have been also interesting to explore parent intervention in situations where a school or school district NEEDS to be held up to standard. This can be very helpful for everyone.
I have seen or experienced successful interventions by parents in the following situations:
-a child qualifies for a gifted program, and then no program is provided.
-a child qualifies as gifted, which designation is supposed follow them throughout school, and then later is told ‘you don’t qualify’
-a kindergartener consistently physically assaults other children until a parent volunteer complains, which leads the teacher to have ‘enough ammunition’ to persuade the principal to assign an aide to the child.
-a parent volunteer overhears a teacher screaming and verbally abusing her class, advises the principal, and the teacher receives a reprimand and further training.
I could list a billion other things, but you get the idea. Parent intervention is sometimes helpful and necessary to keep a school up to scratch.
I know Linus once said “in all of life, Charlie Brown, there is nothing so frightening as a group of parents getting together.”
But we parents must not blindly accept whatever the school superintendent wants to do, if we can do it in a way that is specific and constructive.
7
One of the reasons NY-area suburban parents may feel so entitled is that property taxes continue to spiral upward, due to local school boards and unions which collude to dole out rich pay and benefit packages to administrators and teachers. Then, the parents meet some of these highly paid "educators" face-to-face and find how poorly skilled and out of touch they really are, that they wouldn't be suitable for a lower-level five-figure job in private industry.
Some area districts now spend more per pupil annually than a year's tuition at Harvard. And yet, many still cry poverty. Examine any school budget in our area and you'll find that the largest annual increases always go to educators' salaries and health/retirement benefits, with much smaller crumbs left for any equipment or other amenities that would actually help students develop and learn.
When budget cuts are needed, the administrators and teachers are spared to keep labor peace, while student programs are reduced or tax-burdened parents are expected to shore them up with "bake sales" or other fundraisers.
Perhaps parents come in with an entitled attitude because they simply expect to get what they're paying for. In my own locale, officials are finding new ways to raise my property taxes sharply. And yet, my school district remains a disaster, with low test scores and graduation rates. Meanwhile, the "educators" who help to produce these sorry results year-after-year continue to be paid top dollar.
23
Taxes are high almost entirely because of rich pension payouts, which no district will ultimately be able to afford.
You envy a teacher's salary and benefits? Change professions.
1
I find so much to agree with in this article, as the wife of a public school teacher in an affluent district with lots of "entitled parents" who are constantly bragging about their kids and berating the expertise and competence of their kids' teachers, as though the kids had been educated exclusively at home.
The "Kingsley" example, though, gave me pause. These parents were protesting the removal of their children from schools they loved. Isn't there lots of scientific evidence that that kind of moving around can be disruptive and harmful to children? Did bussing ever did create the desired social changes?
Also, the article seems to suggest that it's bad for upper-class parents to mobilize politically because working-class and poor parents can't. Shouldn't we *want* disenfranchised parents to mobilize in support of justice for their kids? Maybe the researchers could use some of their expertise and resources to help working-class and poor parents advocate more effectively for issues important to their lives.
22
The writer speaks about parents getting their children into gifted programs for which the student does not really meet the standard. Isn't this the same thing that the Mayor of New York City is doing by trying to get rid of the admission test to the elite high schools in the name of diversity?
76
The examples in this article are extreme, but it's overly simplistic to demonize parents who are engaged and concerned about their kids. Our districts went through a redistricting process last year, and while it didn't get so extreme as the one described by the authors, it did get heated and emotional. But it helps to pause and consider why people get so upset. Schools are often unifying pillars of a community, and establishing a strong community takes relationship investment over time. Once you are part of a community, of course it's upsetting to have someone else decide to rip that away from you. People think carefully about where to put down roots, and it's not so easy to just sell a house and move and build new relationships. And of course parents want what is best for their kids. It's not comforting to know that your kid is getting a sub-par education just so that sub-par educations are more equitibly distributed. It's well known that good educations make a difference in future opportunities, so how could we expect a parent to not be bothered by suddenly being forced to another school? Rather than focusing on demonizing parents for advocating for their kids, we should focus on making education better for everyone. It actually IS possible to do, we just have to decide to make it a priority.
15
When my daughter started public school in Berkeley we lived near UC where we had gone to school. Then Berkeley decided to be one of the first districts in CA to bus children between different school districts. The middle class public school in our district brought in children from a different district; we had girls of high school age in the lower grades; we had pimps waiting for their girl friends to get out of class; we had school gangs. At that point we used our "middle class" economic advantage to put her in a small private integrated school. We never put her in a public school again due to increasing gang activity and poor teaching. At one point before we removed her, we had an appointment with a teacher from another State who could barely express herself. Schools should provide a level playing field for all; however, schools are not set up for social engineering at the expense of basic educational skills. There should have been special tutoring established for struggling students, there never was. Later I tutored poor kids in west Berkeley; they were bright and funny; their mothers were involved. Those students moved on to their grade level very soon after they got some special attention. None of this is rocket science.
1
This was all explained with some precision by A. O. Hirschman in his "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States." This is, in my opinion, one of the best books ever written by and Economist on public policy. Everyone should read it.
3
Not sure if this is my district (Lower Merion), but it sure sounds like it. Anyway, we could literally walk 2-3 miles and be at a Philadelphia public school with large classes, run down facilities, and outdated materials. I tell my kids that all the time. We should work for equity and not quibble over having to ride 10 more minutes on a bus.
8
One's ZIP code should not determine the quality of education he or she receives, but it does. It has since I began teaching nearly 40 years ago.
2
If your school district is supported by property taxes, then the zip code does matter. That is what happened during what was described as "white flight".
My kids goes to an independent school. Its pricey but we get small class size, a very diverse student body (far more so than in the type of suburban school district you're talking about) and top academics. You don't need a gifted program when you need to score high on an admissions test and the class size is 15 students. Best yet, the parents have bought in to the school so we don't have this type of drama.
3
"All parents want the best for their children, but a key goal of public education is to create citizens with a vision of a common good."
1
I'm just fine with the Episcopal Church's view of the common good. In fact more fine with it than the highly segregated public schools in my community.
I was a teacher in three different districts - everything from a nouveau riche community of entitlement to Title 1 schools to everything in between.
I am here to tell you there were disruptors (the child kind) in every single school. The only schools with parent disruptors were the high end ones who, by the way, practiced a strange form of "social justice, " meaning they were going to decide what was best for those they deemed "less than." Awful.
I could swear you were writing about Seattle. The district can't do one single thing without parents behaving just like the ones you described in this article. During my years of school administration (after 20 years of successful teaching) I was threatened in front of 35 children by a very wealthy parent. I was accused of all sorts of things. It was mind boggling.
When I worked in the Title 1 schools, the parents had great respect for teachers, acknowledged our expertise, and trusted us to be working in their children's best interest.
Guess which ones I liked better.
57
An important point about the Kingsley example - does the difference between the schools matter? The writer implies that rezoning students to the less desirable school shouldn't make much difference to their education.
I'm sympathetic to that view, but then the writer talks about opportunity hoarding as if the desired school brings advantages to its students.
Which one is it? Because if the desirable school really conveys benefits then it makes sense for parents to fight every inch. If they're just over-concerned helicopter parents they should be reassured as such.
6
No-parents and educators are not "natural enemies," but many educators feel that way about parents who advocate for their children--and other people's children as well. Beaucracies don't like "outsiders" who threaten their authority. Only educators who see parents--all parents--as natural allies, can succeed.
16
Students attend school to learn academics. Labeling a parent as a 'hoarder of opportunity' because he objects to his child being placed in a review class rather than a class appropriate for his instructional needs is divisive. Take the high road, advocate for appropriate classes for ALL students, not just your fav group.
15
I raised my child in a district like this, and have lived in a variety of communities, including the upper west side of NY.
Certainly I agree that parental interference, particularly by the well-heeled, can limit opportunities for much needed change, but this article completely neglects the other side:
a) Some of these lauded Manhattan schools only became such after parents like these made a serious investment in the school and the PTA. No surprise they aren't eager to be moved elsewhere.
b) My family was involved with rezoning our local elementary schools. There are resources in the community to improve the data analysis. The county doesn't use them. There are better methods. The county doesn't use them. Sometimes the school board was very heavy handed about who to move - sometimes the same kid over the six years. Why should our PTA permit that?
So yeah, "how will I tell my 12-year old" represents crazy, but many of us have faced school boards that do a remarkably poor job resolving the real issues.
12
I have numerous friends who are educators (either teachers and administrators) at every level of the education system--from elementary school teachers, to high school teachers (at high and low-income high schools) to upscale universities--and what they tell me again and again is that the far bigger headache of their job is dealing with the parents than with the children. Whether the parents are under-involved or over-involved, one thing many of them have in common is their overriding feeling that their child is special, and is often being victimized by unfair treatment by teachers and administrators who don't understand their child the way they do. It is understandable that parents have a strong desire to protect their child, but their denial of their child's shortcomings often hinders their progress, and the development of the other children who share a classroom with them.
7
This will be my 24th year in the classroom. About 20 years ago, I met someone who had just decided to leave the profession. I asked him why.
He said, "The kids were great, but the adults--the parents and some of the people I worked with--made it miserable."
I've found that to be a very wise and accurate statement.
3
School superintendents are caught in an unforgiving squeeze between school boards, who hire them, and parents.
All too often the school boards have political or social agendas that have little to do with providing quality education to the students in their district, hence the feeling on the part of some parents that they muster all their skills and power to avoid well-meaning but educationally questionable practices.
Seriously, administrators wouldn't allow parents to do ride-alongs to time the duration of bus trips? That suggests the board and administration do not have the best interests of their students in mind; indeed, it sounds as if it is time to replace the board, superintendent and administrators.
It is a terrible idea to berate parents for wanting to support and be involved in their children's education. After all, isn't one of the major criticisms of many minority families that they don't promote education at home and aren't involved in school conferences, activities, etc.?
How about a more reasoned and balanced approach that encourages a positive involvement of parents in the education of their children? If the views and desires of the parents and the school system diverge, then focus on how to bring the views into closer alignment--don't bash the parents and try to make them feel guilty.
One reason many parents pay up to send their kids to private schools is that they provide great education AND their administrators take heed of parents' desires.
8
The behavior described in the initial article are examples of relentless parental harassment, not healthy parental involvement as you claim.
1
One person's harassment is another person's sincere involvement.
It is hardly harassment if a parent trails and times a school bus trip because a school administrator won't let him/her do a ride-along.
It is not harassment if administrators fail to provide adequate and well-documented information to justify a decision, and parents must provide the documentation.
After all, school administrators and teachers are accountable to taxpayers/parents, not vice-versa.
It's easy to demonize parents -- when the entire education system continues to be based on an outmoded, industrial model struggling to keep pace with modern change. Certainly entitled parents exacerbate problems, but so do crazed politicians, myopic school boards, and even harried administrators and teachers who try their best.
We starve money out of schools, reward testing and textbook companies, throw dollars at technology, and mistake standardized testing for learning -- no wonder parents (and educators) get caught up in grades, housing prices, de/segregrating, over-involvement, divisive dialogue, and (and sometimes not-so-) secret warfare.
Working in a large private school in Atlanta for several years, I saw the best and worst of education, public and private. The ones who suffered the most -- of course, the kids. Adults and teachers do want the 'best' for them -- but that term is meaningless anymore. Learning should be what it's about ultimately -- but it's not. Getting ahead is -- and way too many are left behind, because, systemically, we're stuck in the 19th century, and drifting backward steadily.
3
I have seen much of what is written about here. Of course, the super rich send their children to private schools but the well off, yet not so super rich, use their clout to influence public school administrators, boards of education, and even the grades that teachers give, to ensure their children's success. It's pretty perverted and gives the students a warped idea of fairness and their own competencies. My teacher friends tell me that it continues in college, with parents calling professors to lobby for better grades for their kids-unbelievable, but apparently true. One wonders if these parents will be calling future bosses to lobby for good reviews-it's insidious.
8
“opportunity hoarding”
This is a terrific phrase. Here in Montclair, we'd long known of the Achievement Gap (AGAP) in our district. But for years, we'd been shown annual reports that told us it was shrinking.
Then we hired a new superintendent that showed us not cherry-picked samples of achievement data but instead gave us the results for every cohort and every subject. That was a jaw-dropping moment for both the public and our Board of Education members.
What was the response of this liberal town? The superintendent was "run out on a rail" and we'd suddenly the highest opt-out rate of state testing - the data source used to discern the AGAP.
"If thine statistics offend thee, opt thee out."
...Andrew
5
There is nothing new here. People with resources fight to keep a perceived advantage, and people without resources just don't have the bandwidth to do so.
Some parents will always believe that change is unfair; that their kids will suffer at another school; that teachers should not be able to give a hard test or word questions differently from how the student memorized the material. Some parents will fight how grades and classes are weighted to assure that their own kids have a better place in class ranking.
This article is basically saying that squeaky wheels get greased. No kidding.
Administrations have to put up with their constituents. That is what they get paid for. That many are obnoxious entitled loudmouths is hardly news.
4
This situation is just another manifestation of the prevailing American zeitgeist: Consumerism over citizenship, Me and mine, over us and ours. There is no more "We're all in this boat together." This is solipsism.
What those parents want is boutique education over public education. But they want the public budget to pay for their personal preferences. If this malignancy continues, this boat sinks and we ALL go down with it.
Income inequality is the very basis of capitalism...it's not a bad thing, it's good.
I’m guessing a majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents believe the goal of public schools is to provide quality education, not to engage in social engineering.
Of all the divisive issues of the 60s and 70s, none contributed more to our current ugly politics than forced school busing. It nearly destroyed public education.
Involved parents aren’t the problem, their kids generally do very well in school. It’s the effects of the missing or not so involved parents that is the problem, and pretending their kids are “equal” to students that do well is silly. The mark of top students is focus and discipline. The students not doing so well in school lack these traits, but they always seem to be aware of their “rights”, if not their responsibilities. And we seem unwilling to teach that part of good citizenship.
11
No place does it mention Teacher Unions.
The parents are correct in keeping out others.
The "others" are handed admission tickets regardless of ability or test scores.
2
Pretty interesting. I have always wondered something about the "upper middle class" parent. Since they have the resources why don't they just send their kids to private school? That way they don't have to rub elbows with the poor kids. Reason: they are cheapskates.
1
We scrimp and save for private school. We hardly ever vacation or eat out. My kitchen still isn't remodeled, our cars are 15 years old and the yard improvements I've wanted for 15 years are not happening anytime soon. My friends however, have all new furniture, are building a new house and ski Aspen every year. They say " they couldn't possibly afford private school."
4
Do Catholic schools count as private?
My Catholic grammar school was largely working class - the rich kid's mother was a public school teacher, father a parole officer. The rest of us - black, white, etc. - came from families that really had to sacrifice. No vacations, older cars, hand-me-downs. Our school was definitely more diverse than the area public school district, which hadn't been hit yet with white flight.
Now my son goes to a little Catholic grammar school where one eighth grader lives in perhaps the biggest castle in one of the richest towns of NJ; his buddy is an African-American boy from a nearby working class town. Same class of 15-18 since kindergarten (not just same school). I'd bet the rich boy's public school district has zero African-American students.
1
Know what u r saying brother.
My former boss, a school superintendent from Long Island, told me that, "Redistricting is a superintendent's 'going away present' to a school district." My master's level thesis studied the negative effect of "helicopter parenting" on student achievement.
Several factors are at play here. There's a sense among many educated folks that their attendance in school makes them educational experts. Then there is also racism -- often at the root of the fight against redistricting. Extending adolescence into the 20s and 30s and the desire to enter Harvard without the work add to the mix. Everyone gets a trophy is a related disease.
The pendulum will swing soon enough...either that or the wrecking ball.
4
"All parents want the best for their children, but a key goal of public education is to create citizens with a vision of a common good." There are people out here who are good examples of this statement. When I retired from classroom teaching, I decided to create a website for children who are learning English. It is meant to be a useful resource to help parents and teachers lay a strong foundation for learning English.
2
Income Inequality is really behind this. Fewer and fewer people will make it which make the parents insecure and selfish.
6
Okay...earlier today I criticized a NYT article...now this article is the reason that I will continue my subscription.
Great article! Thoughtful & well presented argument...with suggested action! Thank you!
2
Drive through poor areas after school and compare how many kids are playing basketball, or hanging with their friends in the streets as opposed to studying or working on class projects.
I blame the parents - don’t have kids you don’t have the time or money to raise, and when you do have kids, throw the basketball and football in the trash and get out the computers.
All kids, regardless of race or gender can succeed. You and your children are only “victims” if you chose to be.
Sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings, but if you want to damage my kids’ educational
opportunities to make up for your lack of planning or effort - I’ll do all I can to cut my taxes, especially school taxes, to pay for private education for my kids.
3
I would argue that comparing the after school social interactions of children is not a great way to determine who is "succeeding." Playing basketball and having meaningful social interaction is much more beneficial than "getting out the computers." I try to toss my kids outside more often and encourage them to engage in face-to-face interactions rather than have them stare mindlessly at a screen.
11
When you speak of "driving through poor areas after school," I wonder if you're referring to poor white neighborhoods (which are often filled with children who are not playing basketball, but instead burrowed away in a basements or wooded areas consuming highly addictive drugs instead of doing their homework), or if you are referring to neighborhoods of a different demographic. Also, as you seem to feel strongly that people "shouldn't have kids if they don't have the time or money to raise them," then, logically, I assume you favor free and easy access to all forms of birth control, in order to reduce unintended pregnancies, as well as a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, provided it is at an early enough stage.
4
Not one mention of "tax dollars." How convenient.
1
Good luck with this naive prescription for "thoughtful civic engagement". Thoughtful civic engagement for this slice of society means running school board candidates who will undo anything detrimental to the very wealthiest with the most leisure and money to spare. Fierce parental advocates are a child's best offense and defense in this horrible winner-take-all capitalism that we have chosen to live in. We the People pretty much hate and fear each other and live constantly in unspoken conflict. Who wins? Only the very richest and most stateless.
3
Shocking! Who would have thought that parents would actually want their kids to go to the best schools? Imagine, paying all that money to buy a house in a great school district, only to have your house rezoned into a lesser district. Your kids go to a lesser school and your house value plummets because you are no longer in the desired district. What kind of "entitled" person would object to that?
29
What is the philosophical argument in favor of having poor and rich districts coexisting side by side within the same political subdivision (and I’m not refering to school districts)?
Should poor children attend a overcrowded school to keep up rich parents' property values? Should all taxpayers (including those without children) be forced to pay for a unnecessary additional school to keep up rich parents' property values? The idea that a school zone is to forever remain the same no matter the cost to taxpayers to protect your private property values is the very definition of "entitlement".
And yet, these are the parents whose kids are successful.
One of the reasons is that they fight a system that rather than doing the hard work of educating the weaker students insists on pulling the better students down to their level.
Parents who get their non-gifted kids into a GT class are just trying to get their kids a rigorous college preparatory education of the kind that is increasingly hard to come by in our public schools, where administrators and teachers face overwhelming pressure to pass everybody.
I suspect that a lot of teachers at inner city schools wish that their kids' parents had the kind of engagement that leads them to time a bus route.
4
if by being successful you mean take advantage of the many opportunities offered to the children of the well off as compared to the rest of america, you are correct. however if you mean by successful raising kids who are self sufficient, community involved, free from anxiety and depression, probably not as much as you think.
5
"One of the reasons is that they fight a system that rather than doing the hard work of educating the weaker students insists on pulling the better students down to their level."
Yet, it's okay for non-gifted kids to pull gifted kids down to their level? This happened in my daughter's class last year. The few gifted children were slowed down and harassed for being "know-it-alls" by the kids who got in based on their high SES, pushy parents.
1
It is interesting to see a correlation between increased affluent parental "involvement" in their children's education and a decrease in IQ scores for these past generations of children. it makes one wonder if all of the parental machinations are objectively beneficial to their children. I understand that correlation is not causation, but it doesn't mean it couldn't be either.
1
No parent is going to think about the "common good" when it's their child. I live in a town similar to "Kingsley" and even the teachers are paying extra to get their own kids into the best town schools - and NOT necessarily the ones they teach in.
I'm a parent, and I don't think timing a bus route to get factual timing information, when the administrators (who have a vested interest in only presenting their side) wouldn't allow you to ride along, is unreasonable.
8
The point you raise about teachers recommending their own student-children to go to a school they don't teach at doesn't mean as much as you may think. I can't speak to the placement process in your district, but the teachers I know undergo a very competitive interview and bidding process, and can't just choose to go to the "best" school in the district.
3
It is unreasonable. It more than suggests distrust, it implies the district, for some reason, is lying and sets the tone for confrontation. What message do you think this sends to the students on the bus?
2
I was struck by this sentence in the article, "Parents who secure their child’s admission to a “gifted” program, despite insufficient test results, undermine the legitimacy of these tests and programs."
How do you reconcile this with the push by Mayor de Blasio and the New York Times (see today's editorial) to do away with the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test? Wouldn't this undermine the legitimacy and mission of the schools using the test?
Would the article's authors advocate doing away with testing for gifted programs? Would they do away with such programs? Would they advocate reserving spaces in such programs based on some statistical criterion?
33
"Gifted programs" in my experience have been so watered down, mainly to keep white parents happily thinking all of their children are academically gifted. They are not.
1
When we lived in Massachusetts, our town, Wellesley, went through through this constantly. What do you expect when preschoolers are wearing Burberry and parents are hiring Red Sox coaches to help their sons get into a better pee-wee little league division. You cannot make this stuff up. And that is why we moved to a "lesser" town and sent our daughter to a private parochial school. One with economic diversity. Trust me, it is better for the kids than worrying about their street addresses and what kind of car their mom drives. I could tell you stories.
30
This is currently playing out in the affluent northern suburbs of Indianapolis. After a school shooting in one of the schools, parents are vocally lobbying for metal detectors at school entrances, even though that takes resources away from actual education, and administrators have pointed out that students lined up outside waiting to get through would be sitting ducks for a shooter. Another school district wants to close its oldest elementary school, which is in need of repair and under-utilized due to distribution of students' residences. A group of parents is vigorously opposing this. Somehow, ordinary citizens believe they know more about education than the trained professionals. We don't see this with doctors and lawyers, for example.
6
Are you seriously trying to equate school administrators with doctors or lawyers as being trained professionals?
Wondering
Are you seriously not?
Exactly the sort of "Ivory Tower" piece that causes people to recoil against the academic establishment.
Nobody is interested in sacrificing the futures of their children in an effort to promote "the greater good" for others. It's a truism that applies to school districts as much as it applies to warfare (i.e. you don't see parents rushing to enlist their kids in the military in order to help "society").
And over what? An apparachick's desire to impose "bureaucratic efficiency" upon a local population.
35
Ya know what? Little upper middle class kids are going to grow up upper-middle class regardless of what school they go to. Going to a crumby school won’t set them back—it will just make the school better and help out lower class kids. I call that Pereto Optimal. No one is being ’sacrificed’.
I sent my kid to a French immersion magnet school in one of the poorest neighborhoods in town. Most students came from families on what was then welfare as we used to know it, and he was one of the few kids in the school that didn’t qualify for a free lunch. I had to go into the office periodically to make special arrangements to pay for his lunches.
Now he has a PhD in math and is fluent in French.
362
I think the authors' point was that the temper tantrums thrown by the parents in the study actually did harm the futures of the kids in question. The truism appears to be that parents are just as short sighted about what's good for their kids as humans are about any thing else. If these parents were refusing evidence-based medical care instead of evidence-based educational practices, we'd be up in arms. But because we de-value feminine professions such as education, we give them a pass. They are hurting their own kids and others in the process.
15
Actually, you do see parents who support their childrens' decision to enlist. As a parent I would do and say whatever I could to dissuade my child from going to war.
And yes, we do pay our board of education to run our public schools, and yes, hopefully they do that efficiently.
3
Ha, thought it was my town until it said two high schools! But our town has gone the route where entitled (but well-meaning) parents have decided that education "stress" is too much and we need to protect our children from it. The district buys into nonsense curriculum about project based learning for all--admittedly an important skill--as more important than traditional or other types of learning. Fewer tests, no finals, no stress? How are kids supposed to function out in the real world where there are finals and employers expect employees to be able to work under deadlines and deal with day to day stress? You cannot protect your children from the real world and the best you can do is to educate them as well as possible and make them resilient. I am sure this is the wish of parents across the economic spectrum. Educators should be take note.
3
I live in one of these towns. I moved here specifically for the schools. My experience as a single, professional parent of a smart child was disturbing. Some teachers were terrific, others focused on mind-numbing rote learning to make sure test scores were good. Some seemingly fine, normal kids had 'special' plans allowing them more time on tests and other special aids. Parents did their kid's homework and built their science projects. I felt sympathetic for teachers who were assailed by over zealous parents. My son went to a fine boarding school for high school that I thought did a pretty good job of protecting kids from their parents. The projects lining the halls looked like they were done by kids, parents were told to not focus on college until junior year, and kids were held accountable for learning to achieve academically and contribute to the greater good. As a freshman my son spent several mornings a week riding on the trash truck collecting trash. He wrote his own college essays. I paid a premium for him to have these experiences and I am very glad I did. Would not happen in my town!
10
"Affluent parents ... should also model thoughtful civic engagement that considers collective, rather than simply individual, benefits." That's the billion-dollar question: How can we raise a generation that will work to break down inequality instead of increase social stratification?
Seems like it needs to start with de-segregating schools--which is going to make a whole lot of parents angry, including holier-than-thou liberals. It's unclear to me, at least, how we can redistribute opportunity without entitled parents calling foul.
4
Anne Kat, this is about class and culture, not race per se. You can't put middle class kids in a school where they'll get shaken down for their lunch money and academic and behavioral standards are non-existent.
We tried with court-ordered school busing, which I supported at the time. It was a terrible failure. Massive "white flight" left the public schools more segregated than they had been.
When kids from varying backgrounds are placed in the same school, you end up with two schools under the same roof -- the white and Asian kids take honors and AP and GT courses. It's a de facto form of tracking, which was eliminated for reasons of political correctness. You can't eliminate that since you'd be putting kids who are ready for calculus in the same room as kids who struggle to calculate a percentage.
This kind of social engineering just doesn't work.
10
What matters in the long run? To paraphrase Milton Friedman, in the long run we are all dead. To expect parents to make choices not in their own children's best interests in some grand plan to make a better world is a bridge too far for most, if not all. The answer which is actually possible is to invest in under performing schools and consider a better way that real estate taxes to finance schools. But attacking professional class parents for trying to maximize opportunities for their children can only drive them into private schools and leave public schools without some of their strongest advocates. That will be worse than the status quo.
35
So in the long run, having middle-class parents advocate for public education might be a good thing. We don't have to speculate. We can look at other countries with high levels of inequality and very segmented public/private education systems and see how they fare. (Also, the quote "in the long run we are all dead" is from John Maynard Keynes not Milton Friedman).
3
it was the desegregation movement of the sixties and seventies that drove a lot of suburbanites into the republican party back then...they would rather pay to improve impoverished school districts than send their children to them.
1
India is a good place to look at corruption in higher education; degrees are for sale; bribery is accepted and expected. China also has bribery issues. If higher education degrees are important here, they are critical in many parts of the world. Families will pool their resources to put at least one child through university.
Contrast what these parents were able to do to promote their desires for their children with what less affluent parents can do. Parents who attended classes in the regional university where I taught for 17 years had children in school, but these parents would never have had time to compile thick dossiers, attend multiple meetings, and wander around with stopwatches. They were too busy working two (or more) jobs with work schedules that were either rigid or arbitrary, and they could be fired not just for missing work but also for creating problems off the job, even if that reason wasn't acknowledged. They were struggling to keep up in college so that they could garner some of the resources that the parents described here take for granted.
The lower into the working class you go, the more acute this disparity becomes. Although I can't speak to the details, this kind of fight makes the news all the time in the larger city near where I live. Again, I don't have specific numbers, but in this city there is a visible demarcation between the rich side of town and the poor side.
There are many sorry lessons to be drawn from this seemingly intractable state of affairs, but one is that anyone who claims that everyone has equal opportunity in America haven't spent much time there.
15
Absolutely true -- but it's also true that 40% of the kids at Stuyvesant are eligible for free lunches.
You'd have to explain why the children of Asian parents do better than white kids on average, while the kids of Hispanic immigrants who are no poorer and subject to no more discrimination do much worse.
Sure, the kids of the upper middle class have better opportunities, but that doesn't explain the disparity between poor Asian and poor Hispanic kids.
9
But is the answer to push the more fortunate parents to stop advocating for their children? The authors may be experts in their field but appear to know nothing about basic human behavior.
2
The Chinese have a long tradition of honoring education. I have a friend who taught in China; the parents were involved; the students were pretty disciplined; they seemed to know that education was their ticket to success.
This is just another attempt to distract from the real problem, too many kids from one parent households with little or no appreciation for hard work or education. First it was the Board of Education so we saw Decentralization which had no effect. Then it was segregation so say hello to busing and the end of neighborhood schools. Maybe it was the curriculum or if that wasn't the problem it was testing or rotten teachers and corrupt teachers' unions. Now it's Charter Schools and No Child Left Behind. Problem still exists so now it it's the caring parents fault. On the other hand The Editorial Board just finished pointing out that the success of Asian students at the Special High Schools was due to family involvement.
Bottom line is the "Experts" really have no clue as they continue to tinker and maybe eventually they will get it right. By the time they get it right, the school systems will morph more and more into day care.
18
I know quite a lot of people from one parent families that don't fit your description....one of our real problems is people using stereotypes to describe a world they don't understand...
1
Power and control. The common denominator in America. The one thing that elites agree upon regardless of political ideology, religion or party. Sadly perfected in America.
5
I've worked as a high school teacher in both a poor district and a wealthy district, and the wealthy district was worse. In poor districts, there is often a lack of parental involvement because there are single parent households, parents working more than one job, and so on. For some of these parents, if they can meet with you, their goal is just to have their kid graduate high school and not drop out or flunk out.
In a wealthy district, I've had parents threaten me and my job. For instance, I tried to have one sixteen year old boy suspended for making humiliating, sexual comments to the girl next to him. In the meeting, his mother said she knew three school board members and would use them to fire me. I wasn't fired, but the school administration sided with her son and said I overreacted.
One semester I assigned Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man as our class novel complete with a research paper. Nearly 20% of students failed the research assignment because they didn't follow any of the assigned directions. When those enraged parents called, I found that it was they who wrote the paper and not their sons or daughters. In the end, I was told by school administrators to let the students redo the research and to make sure they passed.
I was told by a teaching mentor to fight the battles I can win. I quit teaching because I realized I will always lose against a rich parent.
137
You have described many of the reasons that explain why I will never enter a classroom again. Those reasons plus the factors of students being able to control teachers and administrators through intimidation ... false accusations of "touching", verbal abuse, racism, etc., exacerbated by the omnipresent cellphone with its video recording of a teacher who has been set up to react to a behaviorally deviant "play" - video'd and instantly put on the internet. Frankly, I do wonder why anyone goes into teaching - low pay, lack of administration backup, too many evil parents and principals, the list goes on. Sometimes, though, the rewards are there ... successful students, decent parents and principals ...but too many times not enough to overcome the negatives.
4
this is corruption, though we don't call it by that name. America has always been a place where money talks louder than anything else. Corruption is rife, and taken as a matter of course in the entitled upper reaches of our society-- though it is not tolerated for the 99%. We need to start calling this what it is, because many in america don't know what morality is anymore...
1
If 20 percent of your student fail to follow your directions, it could be that the directions weren't clear enough for them. That a lot of kids not understanding. There are all different learning styles and some kids need to be stepped through directions differently than others.
1
I agree that our focus should be on offering educations that lead to global competitiveness. But if that is to be the case, then the aptitude of the kid should be the leading factor - not the parents wealth. Our funding model is wrong.
We perpetuate discrimination and bigotry by funding schools from local real estate taxes. 70% + of my towns taxes go to the school system and too much of the money is spent on administrative staff - that is duplicated in the towns next door. Why should the ciriculum be any different in one Massachusetts town than another? Why should there be so many school superintendants and meddling school boards?
To achieve excellence in education, we need to create a level playing field for funding. Yes, there are a few efforts at state redistribution of education funding. But they are lame. The state should fund all school districts - equally. The current property tax model is discriminatory and inefficient.
And funding "Charter Schools" undermines the whole public school effort. Each kid is deserving of the same quality of teacher and tools. That is a Globally Competitive attitude.
25
Agree wholeheartedly, except for the charters, which at their best give poor kids a chance to escape the low standards and enforced mediocrity of the public schools.
That would be fine if charter schools did not receive any public tax dollar funding. We paid school taxes when our daughter went to a private school; taxes were based on zip code. I would not have been in favor of funding charter schools. Spend that excess money on full scholarships for kids who need them to attend a good integrated private school, and to upgrade inner city schools with decent classrooms and good equipment. Charter schools appear to be a for-profit school gimmick sucking money from public school financing.
Certainly, there is room for a dialogue. Why not ask questions, study and possibly even compromise. The Administration may have legitimate concerns, the parents may feel entitled but there is a problem that requires a solution, and certainly maybe the children should be included. Life is not always fair but we can all learn, be included and resolve .
Unfortunately our current Administration knows nothing about any of these elements. This is not about me but rather us together.
1
We have one political party in Congress, the Executive branch, and increasingly its majority in the Judicial branch, whose main purpose is seemingly to divide America and Americans, economically and ethnically. Because of that, the already natural inclination toward tribalism of humankind that manifests in schools and elsewhere in society, things like what is described in this article are only going to get worse. Maybe a lot worse.
3
I deliberately sought out a good primary school for my children, that meant higher taxes and a lesser house, but I wanted the best education for my children. The school was ethnically diverse, but most of the kids were middle class and white, although there were many ethnicities. All of the parents were engaged. There were six elementry schools in town, some were in poorer districts, with poorer minority kids. These 6 schools fed into one Middle School. My kids had friends from all backgrounds, because they played sports and met kids from the other schools. One day when I picked my son up from high school at lunch, I noted how segregated the lunch room was. I ran into a friend of my son's from grade school and started talking to him. This formerly very articulate black kid, had a strange attitude and I could barely understand him. What's up with Jason, I asked my son. My son rolled his eyes and said, oh he's gone 'gangsta'. The kids who came from the poor end of town had the greatest influence on the minority kids in high school. They fell out of the AP program one by one, they stopped hanging out with the white kids because they weren't cool and they started getting into trouble. They had the identical education that my son had up until high school, but peer pressure was a big factor. They eschewed academics for fear of 'acting white' and started speaking ghetto patois, which was hardly native to our town. Sadly, very few went on to college. Same start, different end.
36
Sadly, I see the same things where I work.
2
I think the issue of going "gangsta" is a lot more complicated than what you described here. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the premise of the article so not sure why you felt the need to bring this up.
The reference is to the pop use of "gangsta" rap; high school kids adopt what is popular; black is cool, and there is some influence; it doesn't have to be complicated. We are talking about teenagers. When I was in high school 100 yrs. ago, pegged pants and certain haircuts were taken from what were not middle class venues. Teens grow up and move on; until then they live in their own world.
My children went to a public school in an affluent Chicago suburb. They were average level academically which meant that they were pretty much losers. The district was ultra focused on test scores and gifted programs, and started grouping kids by level in third grade. The superintendent was swayed by the elite vocal parents as well as the parents on the school board. The kids from poor families were ignored. I had to advocate for my kids and get them tutors because the teachers in the average level classes were subpar. They actually hired a special teacher to come in and teach the high level math classes. I paid the same taxes that the other parents did but my kids did not receive the same level of education. Oh, and I read to my kids from day one of their births.
11
I don't entirely disagree with you, but negligent parents are a huge obstacle to a successful and healthy child, school and school district. That said, your example of a school district gone wrong would have a bigger impact if we could compare it to a district done right. Instead you finish your findings with some abstract recommendations. Don't tell us what to do, show us what to do.
4
I have witnessed some of this first hand. I believe that part of what is driving this is the ultra competitive college admission process. People go to great lengths to get their kids into what are perceived to be the best colleges and universities . Harvard’s discriminatory practices against Asians is a topic of another NYT piece today. The college world is different than the work world. There is pretty much a finite number of slots, so people do what they can to get their kids the best chance they can get them. Competition is rampant. If we can figure out how to fix things at the college and university level, things may calm down.
6
Not every kid is suited for college; many would benefit from really good trade schools as they have in Europe. A good trade is often better paid than teaching. Check out what certified electricians and plumbers make, or good auto mechanics. Installing and servicing central heating and a/c is not cheap.
'... monitor and scrutinize teachers and principals, which can diminish educators’ authority.'
You lost me forever with the above phrase. Not only is it the job of parents to ensure the competency and appropriateness of specific educators in contact with their children and all children, as voters selecting the leadership of public education and taxpayers funding the process, the people are the ultimate authority on local public education for good or ill.
Know your place.
7
How to teach well, and how to administer an institution in which teaching well is possible, are the subjects of an enormous and ongoing body of research and debate. While not all educators are equally informed or equally competent, many bring to the schools both an awareness of best practices that may be at odds with what parents think ought to happen in a classroom and a responsibility to a wide array of students with many different needs and backgrounds that is very different from a parent's responsibility to his or her child. I agree that many educational settings are "administrator-heavy" (administrators are sometimes likely to side with parents against teachers!) and that parents should be as informed and involved as possible about what's happening in schools, but I worry about the disdain for "educators" in this comment. Parents' needs will always have an individualized component that clashes with the larger responsibilities good educators must shoulder, and the best educators may well be those who make decisions that parents don't immediately understand. Yes, exercise your authority, but do so wisely and with respect.
9
And there is part of the problem. There are outstanding teachers who teach in these schools. In fact, the teachers at the type of school profiled in this article are probably some of the highest performing educators who have multiple certifications beyond their post-secondary credentials.
Parents say they want rigor, but when their children are held accountable they will stop at nothing to punish the teacher who demands it. It gets personal very quickly and administrators who don't stand by their teachers are one of the causes of good teachers leaving education.
Know your place? That is another reason educators leave - people who have no respect.
21
...and that's how you get evolution censored out of science textbooks.
2
School choice solves a lot of these issues. What if we trusted parents to choose the best educational options for their children?
2
Lovely in principle, if you have lot's of money. Ridiculous if you don't.
1
It would appear that these upperclass parents, with their bachelor degrees, forgot their Humanities classes. It boggles the mind that a woman would be crying at a meeting and declaring It's not fair". What is she teaching her children?
What is not fair is these parents are passing on to their children a sense of entitlement just because their economic circumstances are better than other children's
We, as parents, do want the best for our children, no matter our economic circumstances. But instead of passing on entitlement as a life lesson, perhaps humane and respectful treatment would be better lessons for our children
Do you really want your children to grow up in Trump's image?
29
And an agitated mother worried, “How am I going to tell my 12-year-old?”
Be a parent.
2
You are so right.
My town has 3 public high schools, each with slightly different socio-economic distributions. My children went to 2 of them, one with more students who were less well off and the other with more students from more affluent families. Mind you, we're talking Bismarck, ND so we don't have hedge fund Dads, investment banker Moms and white shoe lawyers. I found at both schools, ambitious kids found each other and self selected into the more demanding academic programs. These parents should take a chill, kids who are smart, from supportive families and who are engaged in school, will do fine.
12
If the schools are truly academically equal and the difference amounts to 10 minutes of travel time, maybe the parents should use their energy to make the change life lessons for their kids, i.e., sometimes things change, what we expected is not always what happens, life calls us to be flexible, not following in older sibs footsteps can be a positive as much as a negative...
10
I find this article offensive and full of misinformation. Whether a school is good or not has nothing to do with economic status. That is identity politics. The reason why schools are successful is because parents actively work with teachers and administrators to make them so. The "good schools" have parents who volunteer, when they can, make sure their children do their homework, and get to school on time. They know what their child is studying in class. They don't expect the school to babysit their child for them, or teach them manners. Good parents do that. Good teachers flock to these schools because they're well managed and supportive. Good parents also interact with other parents, and allow their children to interact with other children so that their child learns social skills. More frequently than not I have seen parents who do not allow their child to interact with their classmates outside of school, do not allow them to attend birthday parties when they're young, or play sports. They don't allow their child to become socially integrated in the community. Granted this may be because the parents have to work, but all the time? They barely make an effort to attend parent teacher conferences, or be involved in their child's education. These values do not exist in every culture, nor in every family. Parenting is hard work, and if parents are not willing to participate their child is the one who loses out.
29
Your privilege is showing. I am the superintendent of a small, high-needs rural district. The parents in our district love their children, but the families are so stressed by their economic situations (a quarter of our families live in poverty and our free/reduced lunch rate is 63%. There is a dearth of resources for our families and they must travel, sometimes without reliable transportation, for nearly every service that they need. Taking a child to a doctor's appointment means loss of much-needed income when parents have to miss work at their hourly jobs without sick day benefits. Oftentimes, they are working 2 or 3 jobs and, if there is only one car in a family (there is no public transportation in rural areas), the other parent making it to parent/teacher conferences is impossible. We subscribe to the Community School model, and make as many services as possible at the school so that families have access. Public education is supposed to level the playing field for all students, the result being all children prepared for active citizenship and economic success, but schools even but a few miles away from each other are radically different in the opportunities that they provide for their students. And those differences are driven, in large part, by economic segregation. Especially in this political climate, the culture of doing what is best for all, the common good, has collapsed into a system of competition.
214
Actually, evidence has shown a clear and direct connection between a school’s performance and the economics of the community (see recent writings by Diane Ravitch). Give me a zip code and I can tell you whether the local public school is successful or not. As Ravitch has pointed out, we don’t have a crisis of public education, we have a crisis of poverty.
67
Actually, I worked in a school in which the parents did absolutely expect babysitting, after school, for free. It was a school full of the parents described in the article. When this practice was ended, they went nuts. Meetings, letters to the superintendent calling for firings, reminders of their contributions - so we were supposed to provide free before and after school care for their children regardless of the hours or liability issues.
How do you run a school when you have to spend all of your time on these non-issues?
4
This article reminds me of another consequence of entitled parents’ adversarial attitude to school employees: the loss of excellent, experienced staff.
My dad was a middle-school principal in a low-income, majority-minority school for 30 years. The school facilities were outdated and run-down, and nearly every weekend my dad had to come to school because there had been a break-in. But he loved the students and teachers, and they loved him, and his school was a place of order, love, and learning.
Then the district built a beautiful new school with cutting-edge facilities on the rich, white side of town. My dad was chosen to be the principal, and he was allowed to hand-pick his staff; nearly every middle-school teacher in the district applied to teach in the school, so he was able to select the very best.
And he lasted only a couple of years before he decided to take early retirement. Why? The parents drove him out. He got tired of having fights about every decision he and the teachers made, of having parents blame the teachers—rather than their kids—for every low grade, and of having a steady parade of parents at the start of each semester requesting that their kid be given a different teacher because “his current teacher hates him.”
It is difficult enough to find good teachers and administrators willing to work for low pay in our schools. Parents who constantly fight with school employees risk losing them, and that hurts us all.
318
I agree withe thrust of the article but the rhetoric is a turn-off. "Entitled Parents"? Do you mean parents who are invested in their schools? The people who advocate in favor of raising taxes to create more resources for education? The people who have actually thought about whether moving towards, or away from, teaching methods like "Every Day Math," is a good idea? The people who ask the teacher why it takes so long to return the kids' papers (so long that the kids no longer remember what they wrote) and then give no meaningful feedback?
You complain about the parents ability to mobilize and that they timed the school bus routes. And yes these parents sound ridiculous but embedded in your construct is the notion that the school administrators will always be beneficent and that we should take everything they say at face value. Are you not aware of situations in which the school board is maybe not so wonderful? Having interested, invested and educated parents is a good thing. I don't see how we are better off, or how any debate about school reassignment or whatever is improved, by you dismissing them as "entitled parents."
164
The dig at parents timing the bus routes struck me as strange also. I couldn't help but wonder, this being The New York Times and all, whether you'd likewise fault journalists for doing similar research/reporting to fact check and fully understand policies and procedures?
When my daughter was in a public grammar school in New York, my husband and I were the kind of parents this article is talking about. I volunteered my time at my daughter's school fundraising events, and once a week (I'm a professor, so I had a day I could do this) I read to children who needed personal attention. At one point, I locked horns with district administrators during meetings about the new math curriculum they implemented that emphasized conceptual understanding (understanding math ideas) over and against learning to solve arithmetic problems. Because I studied math to a high level, I felt I could comment on the subject. I urged them to look at articles arguing against this new approach, offered my own experience in learning mathematics, and yes, I didn't mince words in describing what I'd observed in my daughter's classroom--students "learning" math by this new conceptual approach were basically messing around while they played at estimating jelly beans in bottles.
After I was publicly chastised for not understanding the current pedagogy about how best to teach math, I shut my mouth, went home and quietly taught my daughter mathematics on my own terms. While she continued "conceptualizing math ideas" at school (estimating the length of the hallway was a class project that took a week), at home, under my guidance, she learned to fluidly move between fractions, decimals and percents.
A few years after my daughter left the school, the new curriculum was dropped.
111
It sounds like your reason for "locking horns" with your school district is fundamentally different from that of the parents in this article. You voiced concerns that your school's math curriculum wouldn't be effective, which would have been a valid complaint even without your expertise in the subject. The parents in this article are outraged at the prospect of integrating schools, either socioeconomically or racially, crying that this will somehow diminish the quality of their children's education. These complaints are not only illogical and refuted by numerous experts on educational research, they invoke memories of the race-fueled outrage over Brown v. Board in the '50's. While you seem like the kind of supportive, respectful parent that schools actually want, the parents in this article bully teachers and administrators into giving their children preferential treatment while labeling their offensive behavior as "supporting" schools. They even dare to complete their children's work for them, robbing from their own children's learning and raising serious doubts about their claims of investing in education. As an educator, I would love to have your support in my classroom. I would also never lump you with the kinds of parents whose obsessive campaigns for their own children's success are starving opportunities for kids whose only hope for upward mobility lie in school resources because their parents can't afford to provide support at home.
8
Everyday math is, by the far, the worst !
I taught at a top rated public high school in my city for 25 years and encountered a bit of all of this, but nothing that truly disturbed the excellent educational environment created by the very nature of the students who attended. It is only when schools are forced to accept students who cannot meet the high standards by either parents or groups that academic excellence is compromised. It has been my experience that generally injecting students who cannot carry the academic load into a high achieving population of students, everyone suffers. Teachers must spend more time addressing discipline issues, lower achieving students take up most of the energy and resources slowing down the pace of instruction and when they can't make the grades they get completely overwhelmed. This is when some of the parents step in and try to influence the grades. Students are not all equal in intelligence or potential, that's just how it goes. Better to keep lower achieving students in schools and classes where they too can shine.
24
We need to be careful when discussing "intelligence" and "potential". I tutored kids in West Berkeley whose teachers recognized their potential; they had reading problems and basic math problems. I actually used some first grade readers, briefly. They sailed through those and their new confidence took them forward. Once their reading skills improved, so did their math skills, because they could read the problems and follow directions. They were no less intelligent than their more successful cohort. And, potential is always a best guess, or judgment call.
In the Northeast I think the entitled attitude is due to funding schools primarily through property taxes. People paying a million plus for their houses don't perceive the "public" in education; they see the schools as providing a service like nanny care or lawn care or "refreshing" (redoing) their houses. Teachers and principals are like any other service person in the private sector to them, and since school systems are so afraid of law suits, they often bend over backwards for these parents. I understand the desire to get the best for one's child, but the wealthy are used to ignoring institutional mandates in both federal and local government. They also can't imagine that their child, although an amazingly special snowflake, is also part of a group. For example, a parent says her incoming Kindergartener is too smart and needs to be moved up a grade. The principal explains the age requirements of the system. The parent goes to the Superintendent, and maybe the rules get bent, even though this may not be best for the child. A child behaves badly. Many things are tried. The parent blames the school. The child is moved to a different classroom or bussed to a new school. The behaviors continue. What is best for the child and other children? The belief that academic success can be bought and influenced corrupts both public and private institutions at all levels.
36
My then-lower-middle-class parents thought their Kindergartener was too smart and needed to go up directly into first grade, and the public school system refused due to the rigid age requirements. So they had to put her in a private school, paying tuition that was a challenge for them to expend, where she helped teach the other students to read and do basic math because she already had those skills. And she and her year-younger brother ultimately ended up skipping yet another grade some years later.
No doubt some parents today do want "special treatment for special snowflakes", but good grief, your overwhelming dismissiveness really does your argument no favor.
4
As long as the gap between the wealthy and the masses is large and continues to grow, this will happen. Parents will only calm down when wealth is more evenly distributed.
You are asking parents to be sentient robots. We are not. We are mammals. They are anxious, and for good reason. You want them to be calm? Don't just lecture them on how bad they are. Take away the source of their anxiety. (and while these parents are wealthy, you need to talk to the donor class to understand why our whole political system is optimized for increasing the gap, not these parents. These parents, for all their wealth, can not seem to overcome the donor class)
I sent my son to private school and I won't apologize for that. When we have medicare for all, maybe things will change.
11
While my daughter was getting her high school education in the late eighties/early nineties, I was also receiving my education in the impact of ambitious, privileged parents. While I accepted the school's system of choosing students for advanced placement classes, I learned that other parents actively lobbied the teachers and principal to make sure their children were in as many AP classes as possible. I remember talking to other parents, mostly mothers, while we watched our girls' soccer games. The talk was of this meeting with the English teacher, that meeting with the principal, all with the end of their daughters' getting into the more privileged colleges. The coup de gras for me was one mother, who sighed dramatically one day and said, "I only got to bed last night at 3! I was writing Lauren's English paper. Whew, I'm bushed!" This is anecdotal evidence, I admit. But I am sure that the increase of parental interference in their children's school policies and sheer flouting of the ethics of writing someone else's paper is spread all over our public school systems. And the teachers, principals and superintendents acquiesce to their demands more often than the school systems would like to admit.
25
A good teacher will always know if the parent has written their child's English paper.
There are two big problems with the American public school system. The first, and most important, is that public education is under-funded; so teachers are under-paid and under-respected and the facilities often in need to upgrade or repair. This is a national problem and a national disgrace; we should have a great public education system. The second problem is that the schools are funded by property taxes, a set-up that makes inequality in school funding inevitable. Don't blame the parents; work and vote to improve public education for everybody.
61
I have a relative who builds public schools K-12 in NJ. The fact is that lots of money goes to the schools located in the poor areas of the state. Beautiful schools with swimming pools are built., and yet, no improvement is seen in the educational scores.
3
As someone who served as a PTA president at elementary, middle school, high school and the town wide PTA council, there is some truth to your statements about entitled parents, but this is a highly negative article in general. I met dozens of dedicated parents over the years who worked as hard to support all the children in the system, not just their own child. There was and still is a constant conversation among parents working with educators about how to provide consistent opportunities and support across 11 elementary schools of differing socio-economic needs, from after school programs, enrichment activities, playgrounds, to the high school with mentoring programs and much more. When the school budget is presented to the town for approval, its the parents who turn out in droves to ensure there are adequate resources for all children. As taxpayers, parents also hold the system accountable. Lines do need to be drawn, and there are aspects of the system that should be handled by educators, not parents. Of course there are personal agendas embedded in conflicts or resources. There always are and always will be and that's the reality of human nature. That being said, to so blatantly portray parental involvement so negatively does a disservice to parents across this country who give endlessly of their time and energy to the betterment of public education in general.
41
While the authors, no doubt, have valid points, and too much parental input may indeed cause problems, they must remember that any organization works first to propagate that establishment. This is true in policies, placement, and philosophy. A parent does indeed know her/his child best. What does an administrator say to the parent of a child who gets an "A" on the "final exam" in first grade math? Often, it is just do the work over again with "enrichment." In such an instance, the system, even a good one, is more concerned about logistics (how do we get the child down the hall at the right time?), rather than moving the child to an appropriate class. I guess that it's impossible to have a perfect educational system; parents try their best for their kids.
3
Our school district in Washington State went through a similar cross-leveling to reduce the student load at one popular, affluent high school. There was some parental turbulence, but nothing compared to the "Nor'easter" the author shared here. Perhaps our close proximity to a military base made a high percentage of our parents more civic minded.
Our public schools fight the good fight daily to ensure an appropriate education for all--but one of the outcomes of a quality education is the ability to marshal resources and build networks to preserve and improve our lot in life. The parents in this particular district evidently did their homework, minus the civic part.
3
The phenomena have been going on long enough that it's reached graduate level education. For instance, in my area, the state university law school is having problems with getting coddled, unprepared students to take a proper load of classes and gumming up the admistration's work by demanding to get full credit for classes that are easier in place of the full spectrum of classes needed by a practicing lawyer. These students then go on to attempt the bar and fail multiple times if they pass at all. These students then come back and blame the administration for not receiving for money paid. The school had been forced to accept the students that were a lower grade of students from the start because they paid and better candidates don't have funding look to other occupations. In a field there being fewer jobs in the market, one would think the best would rise to the top but entitlement is creating the opposite. Since law is a common education for future politicians, this explains much going on in the GOP.
10
U.S. education is being killed from the inside in a variety of ways. Those who are most marginalized are being further marginalized. Challenges to segregate, take money away from the poorest abound under the guise of school improvement. So-called school choice, voucher programs, charters are all methods of taking funding away from traditional public schools - it takes from the neediest to prop up those who are more affluent. We are assured that the next generations will not be able to compete in the 21st century - assuming the planet will be inhabitable.
6
Imagine a school system with just one school district in each city. All schools would be funded equally and they would all have sufficient resources. No private schools would be allowed. Just Imagine!
10
I believe this article is about public schools, not the funding of private schools over public.
Most cities only have one school district. To my knowledge, all dollars get get allocated per student at same rate by law. These issues are not about money spent. They are about which students from which neighborhood attend in a particular building. If anything, the story shows the perceived weakness by the involved players in the belief that resource equality, trumpeted nationwide as the solution, is what matters.
no private schools allowed? Even voucher opponents say allow them but don't allow any kind of tax breaks. You say they should not be allowed. Extremely simplistic and closed minded
I grew up in Newton, we had metco buses of children from Roxbury, which isn't even in Newton. I don't remember our parents being upset by that. At the time, if they had metco buses down south, they probly needed the National Guard to accompany them. On the other hand, in junior and senior high school, I had heard that teachers were called upon by individual parents to give their child a better grade, a helping hand up from above. It was the early 70s and grade inflation had just reared it's ugly head. Grade inflation from parental pressure, now infects our universities. At Smith College almost half of the graduates have some kind of Honors mentioned in the diplomas. You get what you pay for. In 1970, Newton High was in the top 10 schools in the country, supposedly.
1
Pity you don't remember the parents being upset by the bussing in Greater Boston. In the late 1960s, when the bussing program was mandated by a federal court, riots broke out against it. A quick Google search will lead you to many articles describing the violent protests against school integration through bussing in the Newton area.
1
Sorry, it was 1974 that the violent protests against school integration hit Boston.
In 40 years of teaching, which include 20 as a school leader, I have met very few parents who choose to be on the school board making that choice for the overall good of the community. It is almost always the case they join to promote the interests of their own child only. Just as politicians who know nothing about education are appointed to run major educational institutions and are dismally poor at it, parents. too, should allow those trained professionals to do their job without interference. Its a bit much to pay teachers and administrators a pittance and then tell them how to do their jobs. What nerve!
27
I know of no other country with a “district” school system such as ours. While initially that might not have been the case, it has become a racist and elitist system.
In other nations you’re not limited to the neighborhood school but rather every parent has the right to seek the best school for their children.
I was educated in such a system. When I attended my freshman year at a US university I was amazed at the complete lack of what I considered to be basic knowledge as shown by those of my classmates who had graduated from US high schools.
So much so, that I was exempted from many of the freshman requirements, including English 101!
That’s because while in high school I had already taken most of the subjects a US high school graduate only came across in his/her freshman and sometimes even sophomore years at a university.
We were required to take humanity and science courses that only American high school kids in AP courses came across and now, to my total disbelief, I understand we’re looking into eliminating those AP courses! Way to go, especially against those Chinese kids. Winning all the way.
A good public or private education should be available anywhere, anytime regardless of where one resides. That is true school choice.
9
During 1980s, my son and daughter were students of public schools located close to a large government organization, which funds these schools. Most parents worked in the same organization, and had about the same financial status, but most of the parents lost no opportunity to influence the teachers in favor of their own wards, by interacting with class-teachers, curry favor with them by offering any help to the teachers, with ulterior aims to push their children in the eyes of the class-teachers. The worst attitude came from teacher-parents who taught in the school where their own ward(s) were also attending as students. One can imagine that having access to class-teachers all through the school hours, how much havoc these teacher-parents could create, by eliciting all goodies for their own children vis-a-vis rest of the children in the same class. All prizes and good grades would go to these favored children.
After my retirement, I was made in-charge of all the schools in this locality. A very honored Principal, who had taught my children too, in one of these schools, and had retired a few years before, came to meet me as a courtesy. I told him, with due respect, that he had taught my own children 25 years ago. He quickly replied: "But I have known all parents of the children I taught, then why is it that I have not known you?". I said: "Because, as a matter of principle, I never ever went to any school to meet teachers to influence them about my own children".
6
Did you consider any valid reasons to meet the teacher besides doing so with the intent to influence them?
It would be educational for the privileged student to see how the other half lives. And if these privileged students were actually well brought-up, they would share their superior knowledge with their less fortunate schoolmates and help them achieve.
15
Wow, what a well written, beautiful comment!
1
Implied in virtually all of the comments here in defense of the parents is the very shaky assumption that they know what's best for their child.
I'll be blunt - all they did was procreate, which takes no special talent. But all of a sudden, bearing a child magically bestows knowledge? Absolutely not.
64
But you, aloof and superior bureaucrat, who had absolutely nothing to do with either their procreation or their upbringing, DO know what's best for the child?
2
It's very unlikely to be true of any man contributing here that all he did was procreate, and it's even less likely to be true of any woman. Who do you suppose has been rearing the children referenced in these comments--the Stork? Rearing, not bearing, children does permit valuable insights, and, as in any sizable demographic, some people will get more from the opportunity than others. Whatever their place on the spectrum, no parent's knowledge has been gained "magically," nor has it been "bestowed" upon them. Rather, it's been earned through countless hours spent relating to their children and conscientious exploration into what succeeds and what doesn't.
3
I think the parents almost missed a great opportunity for their children, if I am understanding the reason for the protest correctly and the fact that the redistricting finally passed. The children in this district are from very privileged background and probably don't get many chances to come up against challenges. Their experience of having to go to a different school than their friends and spend a bit more time on the bus is a life lesson. While it is really not much of a lesson it's what available to them let them learn how to deal.
7
Parents are a primary agent of education under the Constitution, we need to find a middle ground here. School board members are elected via public voting for a reason, and I think directing parents to the school board or to committee service is appropriate in the course of a school day when admins are busy doing their job. But simply complaining about the parents serves nothing, it is a negative response, not a proposal which leads to debate and action.
2
The researchers saw an increase in parental anxiety and involvement over the same time period that income inequality exploded. Could this kind of anxious parental involvement merely reflect some core understanding that the playing field in our county has become grossly unfair? The 1% take an enormous share of the pie, largely through inheritance, and the rest are left to fight over the crumbs, while watching the 1% grab more and more tax breaks. Parental involvement will only get worse.
17
I can easily understand why families wouldn't want their children to be sent to a different school than their friends.
I'm not sure why this should be regarded as entitled.
The recent proposal that minority children should receive offers the NY City elite schools regardless of their test results seems much more entitled to me!
30
It wasn't clear to me whether the authors were concerned about poor children and equity or just bothered by over- involved parents. The focus in this piece seems to be on the latter. With that said, let's be clear that it is these parents that pay the taxes that pay the teachers and administrators salaries, as well as the building expenses. In many schools, they pay for all the extra resources by fundraising out of their own pockets and time, even painting classrooms. If educators don't like working in a nice school environment with relatively well behaved kids because of their demanding parents, you are welcome to teach in struggling schools that desperately need good teachers, where I'm sure the parents will be the least of your problems.
49
You missed the entire point of the article.
As someone who has taught, created curriculum, and also raised a child while frequently intervening to communicate with school administrators regarding choices I viewed as problematic for the well-being of either my own child or the group as a whole, I find the assumption of this article that the parental zeal in this case was misguided difficult to credit. The final prescription that parents "should" subordinate their children's well-being to the collective really is asking parents to abandon their role as parents promoting their children's wise education. I find this article sadly anti-democratic, and confused about whether the school district exists to serve individual students' best interests or not. Administrators do not generally know better what will provide a better education for students than the students' parents do, contrary to the assumptions of this article. The fact that well-educated specialist parents opposed the district administrators' decisions may have been evidence that the administrators' decisions were inferior to decisions favored by concerned professional parents. These authors assume that the children "belong" to the collective, and that the well-being of the children better belongs in the hands of the collective's representatives, to which the parents "should" defer. These authors display an inappropriate sense of entitlement, superiority, and hostility to the members of the community the administrators were employed to serve.
50
Public school is just that, for the public, not only your child. Public education is to educate the masses. If that doesn't work for you, home school your child.
To the contrary, I submit it is YOU who displays "an inappropriate sense of entitlement, superiority, and hostility," toward educators, ironic as that sounds in light of your alleged profession (and mine).
Since you admit I cared deeply enough about young people to be an educator, I obviously honor educators and value education very highly. I do indeed feel all parents who care about their children's education are very much entitled and qualified to further their children's education, and that an administrator who hates well-educated parents and resents their caring involvement should not be employed in the field. Public education is for the sake of each child, and sensible and dedicated teachers and administrators who care about each child are unlikely to demonize their well-educated parents. This article seems to me to display prejudice, resentment, and unwarranted entitlement. Anyone who resents the parents of students is unfit to work with those familiies by definition. Wanting the population you serve to submit docilely is wrong - what is called for is communication and respect, which seems lacking in the authors.
1
There is an assumption by many that only the less privileged are disruptive to a classroom because the more "stable and affluent" students are ideal students in that environment. This is not the case as many of these students feel their privilege they are entitled to by acting out, coming to class unprepared, not completing assignments ... the difference between the have and have nots is the parents of the privileged will blame someone else for their child's behavior.
95
As a former teacher, I would say that too often the parents of the advantaged and disadvantaged blame the teacher.
2
PLENTY of underprivileged parents do not hold their children responsible for their own behavior either, believe me.
2
"Democratic processes are essential in public school districts"
They most certainly are not. Boot parents out of school administrative planning, they have no place there. Schools should be well funded with excellent teachers. If the district can does that it does not matter what parents think. Affluent parents have the choice to send their children to private school, but if you're using the public school system you need to let them get on with educating children and stop hassling them with nonsense about a few extra minutes commute.
14
I was on the board of education in the town I live in from 1996-2008. During that time, I noticed a marked increase in parent involvement - and interference - in school. While some of of the parents' objections or suggestions were founded, many times the involvement went as far as demanding that the child attain a certain average in class - it was less important that the child learned the material, all that mattered was the grade.
One of the best memories - we had a very engaged young teacher who really wanted to do a great job. Two sets of parents of "gifted" children were at war with each other and with the teacher - each of the sets of parents were convinced that the teacher was teaching in a way that benefited the other gifted child more than their own. An unskilled laborer from former Yugoslavia brought his ten-year-old daughter to Switzerland, and she was such an outstanding student that after four months, she was the best child in German in the class, completely surpassing the "gifted" children in every subject. It didn't tone down the war, but it was fun to watch.
13
I live in NV, one school district/county! That's 98 schools to manage in our county. Our community (3 public schools) is remote, 45 minutes, at least, one way, to attend meetings. Smaller school districts, with the same per student spending across the state would work better for me.
I once lived in an upper middle class district in upstate New York.
My children were in elementary school then. When I saw the haphzard way my children were taught math, I foresaw a decade of falling behind and not being able to ultimately having the full range of study choices in college for lack of preparation.
I went to the local school district office and offered to translate a German elementary school text so that ALL children could benefit.
I was informed that this school district was indeed doing very well compared to other locales in NY. My comparison however was with Germany and China.
After this I decided to just focus on my own children.
14
It's outrageous to me that public school funding is not managed at the state level. There should be no such thing as rich school districts and poor school districts within a state.
416
Schooling is based on local property tax. So Chappaqua and Scarsdale have a wealth of resources. Wealthier communities may get less of a percentage of the state funds but more than make up for it with local funds. In Mahopac, NY teachers had so many supplies that boxes went un-opened. A nearby in NYC only the 'gifted' classes got hands on science materials and new textbooks. All else got books that had been out of print for a generation (much like Oklahoma now where one student has a grade school text book that was assigned to Blake Sheldon). NYC unions won a case against the state because of the funding issues (about a decade ago) but it still hasn't reached parity. Bloomberg pushed school choice and charters and kept cutting the budget of local so-called neighborhood schools. He impoverished them so much that they essentially became special education and English Second Language schools without the designation or funding. Teaching is a dead profession and future generations will not be able to compete globally!
How about federal level so Alabama's kids can compete with Bay Staters?
1
I agree with this point about school funding. My basic understanding is that public schools in the US are mainly funded through property taxes. In Ontario Canada, schools get provincial funding determined as a fixed amount per child. So schools in rich neighborhoods get the same per child as schools in poor ones. It still leads to inequities, because the rich schools can raise large amounts from parents for extra-curricular programs. And because schools in poor neighborhoods may need more resources to help troubled children (rich parents can also have troubled children, but they have more resources at their disposal to help their kids). But it's at least a decent start at ensuring every child has an equal opportunity.
Some wealthy parents send their kids to private schools. Some send them to public schools. In private schools, they exercise ownership rights. Public schools are owned by the district. If wealthy people want to own their kids' schools, they should find a private school to send them to.
12
I worked the system to get my kids in what I thought the best schools, but my plan backfired as they essentially denied every purported opportunity for whatever reason.
One graduated from college while the others went their own way. Nonetheless none of them appear to be at a loss.
They were given choices, made the ones they wanted and strike me as good citizens who participate in their communities and most importantly vote in every election.
Frosting on the cake is they are all happy.
8
Well it is hardly a surprise that parents would be up in arms about redistricting. Often times one buys a home specifically because of the school district and access to a particular school. It's a pretty huge pain-in-the-behind if that changes after you've already purchased and moved in...
97
This is interesting and in higher education we suffer from "helicopter" parents- they tell professors how to teach, how to cater to their child, etc.
The assumption that their fees buys teacher services like McDonald french fries makes our jobs difficult - education is a non exchange transaction.
This assumption of entitlement for their children leads to a lack of respect for the educator and learning. The whole process of higher education is diminished by instructors giving higher grades leading to grade inflation. There can be no real learning with this type of parental attitude.
22
Exactly.
I taught in a professional medical degree program and in the latter years of my teaching, I encountered more than a few of these students who had managed to accumulate an impressive paper academic career culminating in their admission to said medical college.
Upon further examination, these students were woefully unprepared to undertake an exacting and difficult course of study. However, they were sublimely certain of their own, largely fictional, abilities. Several of them did not hesitate or blush to tell me face to face that "I didn't have to study as an undergrad to get As, so I shouldn't have to work that hard now". Translation: I got admitted, therefore, I am OWED the degree.
Fortunately, I was teaching with colleagues who didn't buy into any of this nonsense and quite a few of these students found that out pretty quickly.
2
This fundamentally pro-bureaucratic kvetch is … unconvincing. Administrators’ parent-adversaries are smarter, more resourceful and more energetic than the bureaucrats are. I have a solution for that.
Let’s assume that the basic intent of school boards is sensible, although the details may need to be adjusted in order to gore the fewest oxen and with as little pain as possible. Certainly, the environment will need to be adversarial, because interests by their natures conflict. But at no time in the process is the legitimate objective to make administrators’ jobs easier.
Entitled parents hurt schools? No, they make administrators’ jobs more inconvenient and challenging than in communities consisting of less entitled parents. But, regardless of the challenges and the inconvenience, it’s the job of administrators to improve the performance and sustainability of schools.
My solution? If particular administrators are unequal to the challenge of doing their jobs effectively faced with the inconveniences entitled parents present, then sack the administrators and find more capable ones. Those sacked might seek less challenging positions in less entitled communities, where their skills and energy may be more equal to effectively doing their jobs given the lower intensity of sophisticated resistance by parents.
22
When these parents, having won little Johnny's dream school for him, move on with the same devotion and marshaling of resources, to make the lives of their representatives and Presidents less comfortable, in the name of quality education for everyone, you will have said something.
Until then this just is just more puffery from the upper crust, ignorant of their duty to their country and their responsibilities as citizens.
The authors' bias becomes plain when they revive a 1932 canard that parents are the "natural enemies" of educators, then expand on the theme with the claim that "Parents are concerned for their own children, while educators look to the success of all students." How insulting! I've known scores of parent volunteers who contributed their time to improve the lives of children not their own by supporting their schoolwork, improving their lunches, increasing their safety, enhancing their extracurricular opportunities, etc., etc. And I've known a couple of teachers and administrators who didn't put the success of every student first and foremost. Perpetuating the utterly unhelpful generalization that parents are the enemy because they are presumptively incapable of considering the interests of non-offspring only encourages educators to disregard their concerns. Where are the stories of educators who improved their schools by heeding the wisdom of parents who passionately campaigned for the changes their children needed?
101
Winnetka has a friendly and collaborative atmosphere that is apparently sorely missing from districts like the one in the article, which sounds fairly combative. Maybe we have that luxury and under different circumstances things would be more contentious. I can attest to this having gone to K-12 in Winnetka, starting with Greeley.
As a teacher I have known parents who showed genuine and lasting appreciation of my colleagues' and my work, honored their children's need for independent school life, and devoted themselves to helping the school. One can be involved in a school without trying or claiming to own it. "Entitled" parents may be unhappy with some aspect of the school from the start; they do not represent involved parents in general.
15
"All parents want the best for their children, but a key goal of public education is to create citizens with a vision of a common good." But your study is not locating the "common" good, but a partial good. In this case, your vision of the "common good" is simply substituting one lower income parent's version of what's best for their children for another affluent parent's version of what's best for their children. If affluent parents paid high prices to ensure their children received a high quality education, then they demonstrated their commitment to the value of education. The affluent parents might have paid for a bigger house or a cooler car or a lot of vacations, but they spent their money on education, which signals their high valuation of education. So it can be understood why they do not want to give away places in their schools to students who are less well prepared, who lack high academic skills, and who don't prioritize education to the same degree. As an educator, I think the authors' disingenuous term "common good" is masking a social mobility agenda that privileges the good of the lower class above the good of the affluent class. Why should schools take sides in the class wars?
42
"If affluent parents paid high prices to ensure their children received a high quality education, then they demonstrated their commitment to the value of education." No -- they demonstrated their commitment to what they suppose will be best for THEIR children. To be committed to the value of education per se is to be committed educational opportunities for everyone and particularly to those who are currently denied those opportunities.
Cynthia PhD right identifies that there is an on-going class war in America. It's been waged for the past 35 years -- downward, upon the poor, by the affluent. Schools should be taking sides and promoting a "social mobility agenda". I can scarcely fathom the mind-set that regards promoting social mobility as a sinister "agenda." Back in my day, we just called that the promise of America.
15
Economics 101
1. Eliminate the funding of schools by property taxes. It is the driving force. Case study: Syracuse. No school in the Metropolitan district rates higher than 3/10. Anyone with children who can afford the taxes moves to Fayetteville or DeWitt.
To quote Edsall, NYT : in the struggling Syracuse metropolitan area families moving in between 2005 and 2016 had median household incomes of $35,219 — $7,229 less than the median income of the families moving out of the region, $42,448. It is
a SELF REINFORCING cycle:
High local taxes = good schools. Low loca taxes = bad schools. You could not invent a better way to INCREASE inequality in a society, would you wish so.
2. Face the distributive effects of globalization. Quote " parents are understandably anxious about the futures of their children in an increasingly competitive global economy, but not every issue is worthy of a fight. "
Wrong. Parents are hardwired to fight for the children. It is the most worthy fight for any parent.
Increasing inequaltiy is yet another distributive effects of globalization, which its proponents overlooked, Address the problem and do something about it. The Nordic model, with high
transfer payment, is a solution.
48
The entitlement and assumptions in most of these comments prove the point in the article. "No marriages" in poor districts? Give me a break!
When it comes to equality, parents with children leave their ideas pf quality and ethical principles at home, and teach their children that they are better than poor kids. Not a good start in life, and certainly destructive of democracy: hence Trump and DeVos (and Pruitt and Sessions).
Is it any wonder that we don't have universal quality public education for all?
Where (and when) I grew up, there was one school system and almost everyone attended it. It served us well.
Time to put those principles into practice and share. You might even learn something.
"Those people" are actually better at humanity at this point. They've survived under difficult circumstances, and they have a lot to offer.
If people lose their minds when they have kids, they might consider the benefit of the kids as well as their own illusions of privilege. It's a ratrace, but it will only get worse if we don't learn to work with each other for the common good.
51
In the fifties and sixties the public school system in America was pretty good. We were in a race to get to space and the focus on science was emphasized, teachers were paid well enough that they bought homes in the same neighborhoods that their students lived in and if your parents got a call from the school, you could expect to hear about it when you got home.
Nowadays, teachers work more than one job to make ends meet and they have to buy school supplies out of their own pocket. Instead of getting respect from the students, the teachers are the ones who expect to hear about it from the parents if Junior has a bad day.
It sounds like all the energy these parents put into timing bus rides and getting studies done would have been better used on making the new district successful.
15
'All parents want the best for their children, but a key goal of public education is to create citizens with a vision of a common good". Sounds lovely, but nothing to do with education, which is this whole broo-ha-ha is about. 12 years is a little excessive to study the "common good". For most parents racial diversity is not an issue, it's putting in kids in the class who are not processing the material at the same level as the rest of the children. American education is dumbed down as it is. American kids cannot compete with Europeans or Asian kids in math, science, geography (believe it or not there is such a subject out there). They might be able to tell you what is right and wrong (the "common good"), but it won't help help in calculus classes, coding or learning a foreign language. The middle class or upper middle class parents probably had a pretty decent education themselves (so they know the common good in addition to a few other things they picked up in school), and they want the same for their children, except that it seems now it's harder to provide. Why don't we talk about aesthetics, the beauty and precision of math, grammar, language skills, familiarity with world class literature, which is what education is all about, as opposed to saying that elite school don't have enough minorities. They do have enough minorities, it's just not the type of minorities for which the politicians care.
105
This article did not mention minorities, but differences in income levels. Interesting you should try to make it about race.
I'm betting that teachers in European and Asian schools would never be asked to tolerate the nonsense and interference that too many parents bring to the table. And yes, I am a parent whose children got excellent educations at good public schools; and I have also taught at lousy ones.
The gall of these academics is hard to believe. Consider their words.
"... affluent parents can create ... interfere with school districts on a scale that is rarely acknowledged."
"The capacity of the parents at Kingsley to impede the reassignment process ..."
The unspoken corollary to "It takes a village" to raise "our" children, is that the village decides what is best rather than parents. How dare parents "interfere" or "impede" the decisions of the bureaucrats !
Twenty five years ago, this country highlighted the problems of educating our poor and minority children in "A Nation at Risk". But over the intervening decades, the idea of helping the unfortunate has warped into a call for those who have made the right decisions in life to feel shame for their "privilege". As in Harrison Bergeron, perhaps we should compel the studious to listen to blaring music to "even the playing field" ?
I support efforts to help the poor - such as funding schools through state income taxes rather than local property taxes. Yet, why does the the "common good" impose obligation only on the affluent ? Tragically, 40% of poor children are raised by a single parent with negative consequences for these children.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood...
And would it really be asking too much to ask parents to read to their children or take an interest in their education ?
Are we trying to help the poor or punish the rich ?
102
The village gets to decide what is best. The village is represented by the school board that the parents elected to do just that. Isn't this representative democracy?
1
Sorry, but the authors of this article spoke the truth, based on my 30 years of experience.
3
You’re not asked to feel shame for your privilege when it’s pointed out that the exercise of it by many is shameful. You’re asked to realize that even the wealthiest child is disadvantaged by parents who instill a sense of entitlement instead of an obligation to support the greater community
6
As a parent of two school going children, the rating of the local schools is an important consideration in deciding where to buy your home. When I was looking for a school district to call home, there was an easy way to judge school performance. The percent of school student body getting free meals was inversely correlated to school performance. The percent of students getting free meals correlated with the percent of single parent families in the district and the poverty levels. There are some schools in the Philadelphia area where 100 % of the student body get free meals. Those schools all rank about 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. A marriage has probably never occurred in that district. Would the authors of this study send their own children to one of those schools?
42
I was an elementary school teacher who left, with regret, the profession although my reviews reflected high skill and aptitude. I loved working with kids; I left because of parents. I became exhausted by a specific type of parent who consumed precious teaching time and energy to repeatedly demand "something more" for their child. They did not care that resources were limited, or that if what they wanted for their child was granted, it might mean a loss for other children in the class. I learned that, often, when a parent said to me, "I love children", what they actually meant was, "I love my children."
324
"repeatedly demand "something more" for their child. They did not care that resources were limited"
In my district, teachers are supposed to provide differentiated education as a replacement for tracks being eliminated. Similarly, most of our schools depend not on pull-outs for state-mandated SAIL (a program for advanced learners), but again on differentiation within the classroom.
So, at least in this case, parents are not completely to blame for seeking "something more"; they're being told that this is to be expected and nobody is willing to admit otherwise.
...Andrew
17
This is happening where I live, too. The schools in Brentwood are highly sought-after, meaning all kinds of deceptions are employed by parents who live outside the area and want to have their kids educated here. On the flip side, the wealthy local parents want their resources used on only the schools within the city itself, so they're hoping to separate from the rest of the county.
I have no dog in this fight, but I was raised in a highly integrated neighborhood and think it made me a more open-minded person. I pity these rich kids who are never alone, and whose friends all look just like them. But most of all, I feel for the underprivileged children who need so much and are getting so little.
124
I feel for the underprivileged children, but as a teacher I treat all of my students equally regardless of their socioeconomic classes. And by treating them equally, I think that means applauding rich students as well as lower income students. My purpose is to teach the disciplinary conventions of my subject matter not to engage in social engineering that necessitates X number of lower income students receive A grades. I wouldn't game my grading process to tip the scales towards the underprivileged children. I see many higher income families investing their wealth wisely by prioritizing the education of their children. I applaud families that don't waste their wealth on designer labels or luxury cars, but who hire tutors, pay for SAT courses, buy summer enrichment courses. I don't think I should restrain the wealthy kids who start to make faster progress because the less wealthy kids don't know how or cannot keep up with this pace.
20
What happens to the children who need help, but whose parents can't afford SAT prep classes, tutors, etc.?
6
Cynthia, what is this nonsense about "A grades"? Kids should get the grades they deserve. What they shouldn't get is rotting schools, inferior teachers, dangerous environments, and a shortage of supplies. Many of them are already dealing with inadequate food, no dental care, parents who struggle at multiple menial jobs, and all the other pleasures of being born into a poor family.
You seem to be suggesting that some kind of educational caste system is a good thing. Why would it be "social engineering" to give poor children a high quality education?
If it will make you feel better, they won't get the fancy summer vacations, new car at 16, guaranteed tuition at the best college they can get into, and all the other perks of being rich. And I can promise you that my neighbors don't have to forgo any "designer labels or luxury cars" they crave in order to give their kids every advantage money can buy.
5
We should give parents a break and start looking at the factors that set them up. Economic, political, cultural forces, on a global level, national level, and local level, ranging from rapid changes in technology and the workplace to changes in education (e.g., kindergarten as the new first grade, early decision in college admission). As a parent and psychologist, I see these forces at work, and at times, feel rather helpless to circumvent them. It's easier, however, to blame parents for hovering or putting too much attention into their children. Parents might be asking more of schools, but schools are also asking more of parents and students. My mother, coincidentally, a teacher, was never asked to do as much as I am for my kids at school. In fact the summer reading list just came and the school suggested I read the books my kids need to read - middle schoolers and high schoolers - and discuss the books with them. My mother was never asked to do my summer reading.
40
Probably your mom as an educated teacher was already familiar with the books you were assigned.
"At school board meetings, administrators found themselves presented with two inch-thick binders full of copies of peer-reviewed studies, meant to demonstrate the shortcomings of the administrators’ proposals."
I taught for a year in a private Jewish high school in the US before going on to a 40 year career in higher education abroad (still in progress). During that year I taught in high school I was deep into my doctorate.
At a teacher's meeting, I remember the principal making a point and then pulling out an offprint of an article, waving it around and saying this article proved his point. I was ready for discussion of the article. How did it prove the point? Author? Journal? etc.
However, after waving it around, he put it back in this briefcase. Q.E.D. Proof finished. I was aghast. Nobody else cared.
If parents come to meetings and administrators with real research, then more power to them. Let the principals and administrators do their homework. It is not enough for them to wave around an unopened and probably unread offprint.
52
I agree with this. I wish some of my principals and administrators knew how to read, to evaluate, and to apply peer-reviewed journal articles in class pedagogy, design, and management. Some of the principals I encounter are intellectually intimidated by academic research and instead operate by their gut feelings. If I have parents raising the level of pedagogic discussion at my schools, then I will be very happy to meet them at that level. It's certain principals who wouldn't know a peer-reviewed journal from a hockey stick, who will run into difficulties. I don't think these sorts of anti-intellectual principals should be in leadership roles to begin with.
16
Are YOU using peer-reviewed articles and teaching your students how to evaluate such? Are you teaching your students how to research facts, how to understand the research that goes into published articles, how to understand facts vs. opinions, anecdotes vs. data?
If not, then you are complaining about the wrong group of individuals.
As a teacher reading these comments, there seems to be a common belief that children from "disadvantaged backgrounds" who have "uninvolved parents" who may or may not be sober, are the only ones who disrupt classrooms and interfere with learning. I'm here to tell you that is not true. Advantaged families also disrupt classrooms and interfere with learning, however their methods are very different. They tend to be more top down, bullying administrators, attacking curriculum, demanding grade changes that are not earned, undermining discipline because their children don't suffer consequences. These parents are involved - to the point that it's unhealthy. It's just as damaging to be in a classroom with these kind of people.
651
This! You read frequently about out of control sports parents bullying the coaches. Well, our district has this equivalent within the academic enrichment sector. Parents super-over-involved in the academic competitons and teams, demanding changes to the tryout criteria, bullying and belittling the teachers who volunteer their time, making certain their kids ‘earn’ a spot on the team and win more medals, etc. And the administrators regularly cave in to these powerful parents. We have had several excellent, caring, dedicated teachers decide to stop coaching these enrichment activities because of the toxic, competitive atmosphere created by these entitled parents, who are certainly not out to better the entire school community.
4
Not to mention coaches who get paid almost nothing having to deal with irate parents who know that if only Johnny or Jenny would get more playing time they'd surely get a full athletic scholarship at a top college, if not be the #1 draft choice in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc.
3
So true. Sent my preschooler to a "gifted" school (20 years ago) where it was clear the main gift was that each child had was wealthy parents who felt it their duty to do the work for the child. Even a coloring project sent home was colored by the parents. So not good.
5
When we first moved out of the city, we briefly lived in an affluent, conservative suburb. About a month after we moved in, the news came out that our public school's standard test scores had outranked the wealthiest communities in the Chicago area, and the Chicago Tribune published an article about it. Overnight, our property values increased by over 30%. There was so much pressure on the school after that to keep the scores high that the principal resigned two years later. She told me, "That was an exceptional year, but we're teaching children, not robots. I can't guarantee the same results every year." It was all about keeping those test scores high so property values would stay high. This also meant there was increased, constant stress on the students to perform, perform, perform. And demands from the parents that the school add more gifted programs. So much competition and need to brag. We moved, I couldn't stand it.
432
I grew up in a rural area where you were either well to do or working class. We were a logging town but had grown enough for two highschool's. To ensure that the working class kids had the same educational opportunities as the more affluent kids our school district was zoned so that 10% of the kids from the affluent neighborhood went to the highschool in the working class neighborhood. You better believe that the parents of the 10% moved heaven and earth to ensure that all of the classes and programs for both schools were identical. The working class kids benefitted from their presence big time.
We saw the same dynamic play out when schools were forced to integrate in the south. White parents would not tolerate their children receiving a subpar education and they demanded equality with the education system. White kids were fine but the black kids benefitted enormously from the integration of the schools as the quality of their education was greatly improved.
Finland doesn't have private schools. As a result the wealthy are very interested in making sure that all public schools have the best education system possible. There's a lot to be said for integration and we've forgotten the lessons that the post civil rights generation learned about this phenomenon after Reagan rejected integration as hooey. We need to relearn our own history and reintroduce past integration policies that once gave us some of the brightest students in a generation thanks to inclusion.
245
My experience in the midwest is that those who can move, just move. They don't up the quality of a mixed income school.
1
White parents in the south also withdrew their children from the public schools. In the worst cases, the entire school district was shut down and the white parents got together and started a private school.
So black parents tolerated their children receiving a subpar education?
1
Fascinating study. In the small southern Alberta town where I have taught for 20 years, we teachers call it the "golden child" syndrome and my purely anecdotal evidence suggests entitled parents come from all demographic groups. While they're certainly getting louder in the last few years, I still love their kids, so like most teachers I carry on.
8
Yes, few things are more dangerous to our liberties than concerned parents! Affluent suburbanites and city-dwellers are generally liberal and tolerant in the abstract, but suddenly become much less so when they are asked to shoulder some of the redistributive cost necessary to make our society more equal in practice. Affluent parents suddenly become much less liberal when they fear that their children's education or their housing value may be compromised. As Lily Geismer and Matthew Lassiter wrote in the Times just a couple weeks ago, the Democratic Party is making a mistake if it continues to base its electoral strategy on winning over educated, affluent suburbanites. These voters may espouse multiculturalism, lieralism, tolerance, yadda yadda yadda, but they are not generally willing to sacrifice much of their social and economic advantages to implement these values, and instead engage in considerable "opportunity hoarding."
214
Actually, we would prefer that ALL schools have the resources necessary to be excellent. Schools with high numbers of "disadvantaged" students need more resources to make up for the advantages that more affluent students enjoy. There, that wasn't so hard.
3
Double recommendation for your comment. I believe the term is "Me" liberals. I hope the Democratic party is reading...
1
The affluent suburbs in my area vote Republican every time.
1
Most state constitutions mandate that school funding is predominantly based on local taxes and controlled by local school districts. This causes most of the tension in the system. Where I grew up, in Ontario, schools are the responsibility of the province. Each county is a school district, and all districts teach an identical curriculum. College applications are based on grades for standard courses in the final year of high school, rather than a standardized multiple choice test like the SAT or ACT. School funding is from the province, and almost the same amount goes to every student (rural districts get a little more because low density leads to smaller schools and higher costs). So school districts do not enter into real estate pricing, and there is less of a tendency to self-segregate. The problem here is with local control of education.
139
My nephews went to school in Ontario where the schools are universally regarded as sub-par. That is one way of ensuring equality.
8
Sub-par relative to what schools in which municipalities?
1
As a teacher I say the best possible thing we could do for our schools is get rid of the adults.
72
"All parents want the best for their children, but a key goal of public education is to create citizens with a vision of a common good."
If this were true, there would be no need for redistricting, a study, or endless articles on inequality in education. In reality, not all parents want the best for their children. They are neglectful or abusive or dysfunctional for a myriad of reasons that all add up to the same result: their children are disadvantaged in all the areas that matter most and are ill prepared to participate in the classroom and the workplace. But the law recognizes the rights of parents and prohibits the state from "equalizing" the lives of these children by removing them to homes in which parents are present, loving, sober and engaged - without judicial due process, just because it's unfair that they were born into a family that will foster an "opportunity gap" for them for the rest of their lives. So why does the law allow the state to interfere, without judicial due process, in the parental rights of children whose families are present, engaged, sober and loving? Because that makes them "entitled?"
This does not create a public school system that works for the common good. It uses politically charged and divisive language and techniques to shame and blame those who are woke to the disregard of their parental rights because it is "unfair" to those that choose not to parent in the best interests of their children.
25
What? Your comment assumes that an awful lot of poor parents are not "present, engaged, sober, and loving." I'd take a parent who works three jobs to support their kids to one who buys a whole bunch of labor to raise theirs from birth and claims to be a "present, engaged, and loving" parent. You are proving the authors' points with your broad, sweeping, and demonstrably untrue assertions. Try not to use the term "woke," because you definitely are not that.
2
I can understand the parents frustration, when they may have specifically bought a home, perhaps at a higher cost, that would allow their child to attend this school. This is precisely why we have to detach real estate from public education. The funding formula is inherently slanted to affluent communities. I recently watched a documentary on school in Finland, where there are no private-pay schools. This helps to ensure that more affluent families have a vested interest in public education.
489
The USA will not make private schools illegal. This is not small Finland with a low level of ethnic and racial diversity. Individualism, diversity, choice, etc., is partly why we have such diverse schools.
I agree entirely that "The funding formula is inherently slanted to affluent communities." Tax laws can change this. But we will never be like Finland.
4
Oh God no. That may work in Finland, where the schools have high standards, but in much of the US, eliminating private schools would in many cases eliminate any opportunity at all for a solid college preparatory education, thanks to the absurd race to the bottom policies that insist every student study with and at the level of the worst performers.
2
I grew up in a small town where the affluent, the poor and everyone in between went to the same school. I learned a lot that I would not have if I had gone to school with only kids of my economic group...race is important, but economic class is another division that we like to pretend doesn't exist....
5
But you can't stop parents from doing what they think is best for their children. Otherwise those who can afford it, will seek private school options. It is what it is.
31
I'd argue that if you want that much control over your kid's education, then you should be putting your kid in private school. If you send your kids to private school, you as parent control more. You also pay more, which is fair. Public schools have a mandate to serve everyone and help every kid as fairly as possible. Don't like it? Pay for private school and continue to pay your taxes to your public school system.
2
The sad reality is that in today's public education system, in California at least, schools are underfunded and rely heavily on parent contributions to succeed, either through volunteering or donations of money. In the public school that my son attends, our elementary is one of the few highly rated in our large urban school district, largely due to the fundraising efforts of parents to provide enrichment programs that the school district will not pay for. Nothing fancy. Just, you know, art, science, a garden. Things that would be standard in a well-funded public school.
Recently, our principal resigned after only a year in the job. When discussing his resignation with the PTA, one of the reasons given was that he spent a large amount of time in parent meetings, managing parent expectations and so took a job at a high school instead.
My response to that was that if the school district requires so much input from parents in volunteer time and for fundraising efforts, then they have to live with a high degree of parent-teacher time. As a school district they need to either fund the school adequately (which they are not currently doing) or rely heavily on parent support. If it is the latter, then tough luck if you resent supporting needy parents because that's the price of requiring their support to make your school a success. Educators cannot have it both ways.
28
well - no - so many liberal school administrators hope that the kids from stable homes who actually study and do the work without disrupting and holding the classroom hostage will 'rub off' on those kids who do not - while ignoring the fact that it only takes a handful of disruptive and violent kids to hold a school hostage. Parents want a safe and stable environment for their kids to learn - is this so very hard to understand? To call being held hostage by the few a 'common good' is tantamount to blaming the victim.
195
The "rub off" effect does not always work. A Westchester NY town I lived in implemented something called "The Princeton Plan," in which one elementary school contained K-1st grades town-wide, another contained grades 2-3, and another grades 4-5. This was a social success in that when they all got to middle school for 6th grade, things were much more peaceful than when the children had been in their neighborhood schools and divided by the socio-economic and racial type of their neighborhoods. However, it was not an academic success. The disadvantaged children did not do better academicly as expected.
80
You describe school administrators as "liberal." What makes you so sure? What a strange assumption to make! Anyway, to respond to the rest of your comment: yes, parents want what is best for their child, but they also need to keep in mind that we are part of a society, not a random, unconnected array of individuals, all out for nothing other than themselves. Savvy?
12
Interesting. I live in one of the Westchester, NY towns that uses the Princeton System for its school system. I wonder if the town you lived in is the same town I live in. For purposes of my comment, I'm going to assume you did. I think you misunderstand some of the goals of the Princeton System. One of the reason to have it to expose all the students in one grade to all the same resources as their peers. In my town, the differences between the neighborhood schools were a result of the different economic classes in each neighborhood schools, which resulted in some schools having more parental involvement than others, which then resulted in an uneven playing field. One reason to restructure the schools was to end this. It wasn't just about academics but about other opportunities. A dual language program can exist because all the kids are in one building. In a neighborhood school, it can't happen because the number of interested students needed for such a program don't exist on the smaller scale. Programs like band can happen despite a low tax base. The band teacher stays in one building, there's no chance that one school may not have band because the district can't hire a band teacher for each school. All the teachers in each grade can work together on curriculum without having to leave the building to meet up with the other teachers. There are many advantages behind the scenes and it's taken some time for the benefits to make themselves known.
I say this all the time to my colleagues who may be struggling with too much parent oversight: parents come from a place of intense love and intense fear. If we can recognize and honor this first, perhaps then we educators (and boards of education) can develop ways to work collaboratively with parents. Or perhaps not.
In my 25+ years, I've witnessed more and more parent engagement from the affluent ones, and less and less from the ones with whom we more often need to connect. But the squeaky wheels end up with the grease, which sometimes fuels even more squeaking. It's a power thing, of course. And so it's no wonder there are disgruntled folks who feel powerless, who feel looked down upon (they are - those affluent parents are not drawing these folks into the fold). As the squeakers ascend amidst *their* distrust, the have-nots withdraw further into *their* distrust. And we educators are left to yearn for the trust that was once bestowed upon us, and which I fear we will never see again.
52
I wonder if the resources in time, money and energy devoted to children in low-income schools, in terms of cajoling parents to get involved, providing after-school help, tracking down students to remind them of upcoming standardized tests, handling truancy and so on, is more or less than the resources expended by the school district to get into a place, a re-districting plan. This might be a case of the same circus, but different tent.
Still though, it seems the school district is responsible for the drawn-out process. Does the district have a policy in which inputs are required by a certain time, time to allow parents to speak at meetings and time for comments on a final proposal? If all these are in place and have been met, then the school board votes, and parents who are not happy can then take it to court.
But what if 10,000 parents decide to participate in the process? Then Kingsley, you could have a problem.
1
As an educator, I understand the need for equity in educational opportunity. I have taught in high-poverty schools and affluent schools. There are positive feedback loops that maintain a culture of learning in more affluent schools and the same is true of the lack of a nourishing culture in high-poverty schools. In the former, there exists a multitude of opportunities for students to grow intellectually while resources are available to support the relatively small number of struggling students. In the latter, the focus is on managing disruptions to the learning environment and trying to push a large percentage of the student population to a minimum standard just to earn credits towards graduation.
As parents, we have conscientiously bought a home in a school district where our children will be able to exercise their right to an education and experience intellectual and personal growth. Their teachers have the time, resources, and expertise to facilitate the learning of all of their students rather than needing to spend 90% of their focus on disruptive and/or disengaged students. As a parent, I'm not willing to place my children in the latter environment (where their needs will largely be unmet), and I'm not going to apologize for looking out for the best interests of my own children. I don't blame anyone who feels the same.
566
In the given educational environment, you are correct. The real question is how to make all schools offer the education your children are receiving.The answer for that involves putting more resources into the schools than we citizens are either willing or able to give.
26
As a parent and spouse of an educator, I find this comment to be sad. Instead of having a level playing field where all children have a chance to succeed, We have an essentially segregated system where only the more affluent who are able to move get better schools. Sad that we aren't better people than that.
16
That is the sad reality.
In the end, it seems to me that it's the talented students from poor backgrounds who suffer most. The prosperous parents will always find the resources to move their kids to a better environment as you have.
Rather than playing musical chairs with students who will just reduce the level of any school they attend, we should make it possible for talented, well-behaved poor students to study in a rigorous program where classroom disruption is not tolerated -- something that is easily accomplished by removing disruptive kids from the program.
6
Can we dispense with inappropriate and provocative uses of the term "segregate"? It has traditionally meant not only that an imbalance exists but that it was deliberately produced as a result of policies designed to produce that outcome. That is why it has always been considered to be odious and its instigators have been condemned. But when an imbalance (racial or otherwise) exists inadvertently due to outside factors or to policies having other goals, the use of the term is an unwarranted slur on blameless individuals.
There is nothing wrong with the neutral term "imbalance", and the word "segregation" should be applied only where such an indictment is deserved.
160
I note that the term segregation was preceded by the word economic. From housing developments with a limited price range, to zoning, to redlining, and other policies, economic segregation often has been and is intentional. For example, many people would not buy an expensive home in an area with very low-priced homes. Home builders recognize this and have created extensive economic segregation in growing communities. Around the country, I have seen advertising for a housing development with a fairly narrow range of house prices -- near another that had higher priced homes in another fairly narrow band of prices. Zoning large minimum lot sizes and types of housing (single v. multi-family) is intentional and often results in pricing people out. Redlining prevents people from acquiring loans or insurance. These policies may not all be governmental but they all have or currently contribute to economic segregation no matter what the "real goals" might be.
11
There is de jure segregation and de facto segregation. The use of the term segregation here is referring to de facto segregation as de jure no longer exists. It is not an inappropriate use of the term.
Putting a palatable label (read: imbalance) on an ugly consequence (read: de facto segregation) just excuses people of responsibility for the outcomes of their actions.
3
It was -- and is! -- deliberate. Check the history of red-lining, very much deliberate. Not to mention legality of simply saying, "No, because you're not White." Let's Integrate Intentionally. If using the term "imbalance" helps White people get on with the task of integration, well, ok. But make no mistake: we did not end up where we are "inadvertently".
1
All schools need to be good. Creating “good” and “bad” schools is the problem. Economics define them nationwide.
In any school district in America, any teacher can tell which schools are “failures” and which “successes.”
131
Absolutely. But in the particular case the article described, school quality was not mentioned as a factor by the protesting parents -- 10 minutes additional commute time was.
1
That's a bit naive. What makes a school "good" is mostly its student population. A school of polite, non-disruptive high achievers will be good, whereas a school of screaming laggards is bad. This is the implicit assumption here, and why parents are fighting to keep school populations as they are.
3
The problem is funding for schools is distributed based on local tax revenue. This ought not to be the case. Every child in America deserves a solid education. Without a basic education, our democracy is in peril.
5
I don't blame parents for trying to seek out and protect "good" school districts. Most public schools seem to teach to the middle; too often high-achieving students are left with little or no support. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that well-educated parents look for districts with a similarly well-educated population.
By placing their kids in well-funded, safe schools with advanced classes and a high-achieving peer group, parents are helping their child's future.
Perhaps if other districts had more to offer, such tactics wouldn't be needed.
187
In my experience as a parent and a teacher, it is often that the average or not highly performing students receive short shrift. But why do we seem to pit one kind of student against another??? Providing a "well funded, safe school" with resources that meet the needs of ALL students is a wish of ALL parents. PUBLIC education should be equitable so why then should some districts have more to offer? In NY state NYC had to sue the state for equitable funding for its schools, and it took years. I do not think that funding has been forthcoming.
4
@Chris: OK. So, if other districts do not have "more to offer," wouldn't parents who care about the well-being of our society try to help them have "more to offer?" (One way to do this would be to discourage systems that fund schools based on property taxes.) And doesn't it help a child's future to learn to work with children from a variety of backgrounds?
3
As a former math teacher, I can tell you that when you have average class sizes of 30 children (in a high school no doubt), you teach what will provide the greatest utility. Yes, that can mean teaching to the 'middle'. One thing that is statistically accurate is that wealthier districts have smaller class sizes than poorer districts. It is very well known that quality of instruction is inversely proportional to class size. If you want better treatment, I would suggest you should advocate for more schools, more teachers, and smaller class sizes. All that will allow for greater optimization of instruction.
5