patrick.net

Liberals wanted schools desegregated.
After the mission was accomplished the schools weren't good enough for their kids.

You'd think Liberals would be up in arms about education inequality, but they are mute silent about that. Because they don't want those intercity Cretins competing with their kids scholarships and accolades. Besides if you educate the poor very well.
Liberals would be obsolete.

They wouldn't have any Bullshit to sell. They make careers feigning concern, while they do every thing in their power to keep the inner city Youth, inner city.

I didn't mean for this to be a liberal versus conservative topic.

Well you did ask about their demographic.

Education is a Liberal issue, they obsess with it. There aren't any upscale conservative gated communities known for their "best schools".

edvard2 says

I didn't mean for this to be a liberal versus conservative topic.

Too late, the moment that you decided to discuss something on this forum (particularly about education) there are bound to be politically motivated attack posts, and soon...

edvard2 says

Do parents obsess too much over schools?

I feel that the short answer is yes. People attribute too much of a child's "success" to the school; while studies have shown that parent involvement is the single greatest factor in a child's success at school.

That said, there are very good reason to get into a "good" school, but those reasons are often over inflated by parents.

edvard2 says

Now granted I don't have nor plan on having kids.

So, you will probably never understand the way people feel about their children, and the overwhelming biological drive to give them the best opportunity you can.

I think that there is a chemical change in the brains of people who become parents, not unlike puberty, where the focus of thinking is altered to bias for the survival of their child. I don't know if there are any studies that prove this though.

Anyway that change can dominate all behavior, leading to irrational (or perhaps not entirely rational) choices.

I think this is far less of a political issue and far more related to status-seeking. The throngs of dull, unimaginative people who desperately need to out-compete their neighbors by spending (borrowed) money are also using school selection as another outlet to satisfy their materialistic needs.

Tenouncetrout says

Education is a Liberal issue

That's actually really sad. Isn't education a bi-partisan issue?

Conservatives don't want their kids to get a good education?

tatupu70 says

Conservatives don't want their kids to get a good education?

Sure the do, they just don't want the government to provide all children in the US with a good education. They think that their children will still get a good education in the absence of public schools(and by conservatives I mean tea baggers).

Tenouncetrout says

Well you did ask about their demographic.

Education is a Liberal issue, they obsess with it. There aren't any upscale conservative gated communities known for their "best schools".

I disagree. I grew up in a heavily conservative area and for the most part the area schools were decent. I went to school with some very poor children as well as some kids from wealthy households. Its sort of silly to assume conservatives don't want their kids to go to good schools.

leoj707 says

That said, there are very good reason to get into a "good" school, but those reasons are often over inflated by parents.

I agree. A good school isn't a guarantee that you'll have successful children anymore than buying the safest car assuming it will keep you safe from accidents. I have known many, many people who went to the "best" schools or even expensive private schools that turned out rotten. Likewise there are people who went to awful schools that went on to highly lucrative, successful careers.

edvard2 says

I agree. A good school isn't a guarantee that you'll have successful children anymore than buying the safest car assuming it will keep you safe from accidents. I have known many, many people who went to the "best" schools or even expensive private schools that turned out rotten.

Of course not. But wouldn't you want to give your kids the best chance? Statistically, your kids have a better chance at success if they go to a better district.

I think it may be different in the Bay Area--maybe people there are over the top. I'm not talking about that area specifically, but I look at school districts when I move. I'd like to be in a 9 or 10 on great schools...

tatupu70 says

Conservatives don't want their kids to get a good education?

edvard2 says

I disagree. I grew up in a heavily conservative area and for the most part the area schools were decent. I went to school with some very poor children as well as some kids from wealthy households. Its sort of silly to assume conservatives don't want their kids to go to good schools.

You just explained to tatupu70 how conservatives get a good education in spite of not living in the fortress. Conservative kids are motivated to get good grades to spare them the wrath of a disappointed conservative parent, in ALL demographics.

Tenouncetrout says

You just explained to tatupu70 how conservatives get a good education in spite of not living in the fortress. Conservative kids are motivated to get good grades to spare them the wrath of a disappointed conservative parent, in ALL demographics.

I'm afraid I really don't understand your point. None of that makes any sense. Kids have absolutely no idea what conservative and liberal ideals are nor do they care. I can assure you that kids- no matter how their parents vote- are not going to be thrilled about showing their parents a bad report card. I'm also not advocating "Conservative" schools... whatever that's supposed to mean. We got taught math, science, chemistry, history, art, and had some PE and extra-curricular classes. In other words, probably the same as everywhere else.

My point was that I don't feel there was this huge amount of emphasis on schools- as in the "Best" schools or whatnot amongst parents when I was growing up. I've noticed a big difference out here. This isn't a conservative or liberal issue. Its an issue of whether all that emphasis parents around here place on education is really all that beneficial because its not just the schools. Its the teachers, parents, and most importantly- the kid.

tatupu70 says

Statistically, your kids have a better chance at success if they go to a better district.

?

It would help immensely if you defined 'statistically' (as in by what statistical measure) and 'success' (as in what constitutes success) here.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/02/ohio-mom-who-put-kids-in-wrong-school-was-deceitful-parole-board-says/?iref=obinsite

Goddamn lowlifes trying to get a good education.

terriDeaner says

tatupu70 says

Statistically, your kids have a better chance at success if they go to a better district.

?

It would help immensely if you defined 'statistically' (as in by what statistical measure) and 'success' (as in what constitutes success) here.

Good points. Success is very difficult to quantify, isn't it?

The point I was trying to make was along the lines that good schools are some advantage. You can run a marathon in bare feet, but it doesn't mean that wearing shoes doesn't help.

tatupu70 says

You can run a marathon in bare feet, but it doesn't mean that wearing shoes doesn't help.

Hmm... this guy might disagree:

From:

http://theweek.com/article/index/209052/barefoot-marathoning-a-healthier-way-to-run

The argument is that humans evolved to run without shoes and that expensive sneakers contribute to ailments - including stress fractures and shin splints - that often plague long-distance runners.

It is better to have some evidence to back up your assertions, no?

tatupu70 says

The point I was trying to make was along the lines that good schools are some advantage.

Perhaps, but does that advantage extend to all students? Probably not. And so it seems foolish to buy into a 'good school' zone, just for the schools, if your children *actually* stand to gain nothing more from them.

There is the argument, of course, that houses in 'good' school districts represent better investments (i.e., such properties are likely to hold their value/appreciate more). But that seems to be more a function of belief by those who buy into those zones, rather than a measure of student success.

For example, a common belief is that more $/student is positively correlated with standardized test scores. But that isn't strictly true, particularly in California:

California school district spending and test scores
http://projects.californiawatch.org/school-district-spending/

Despite years of efforts to equalize spending in California schools, some districts receive thousands of dollars more per student than others. And although some districts spent much more than the average, the bigger expenditure didn't assure higher scores on the state's Academic Performance Index, which is based on student test scores and other academic measures.

But then, standardized test scores aren't the be-all, end-all anyhow.

terriDeaner says

The argument is that humans evolved to run without shoes and that expensive sneakers contribute to ailments — including stress fractures and shin splints — that often plague long-distance runners.
It is better to have some evidence to back up your assertions, no?

In this case no. I think my point is made. He has proven that you can run a marathon without shoes. And the other 99.99% of people wear shoes.

terriDeaner says

Perhaps, but does that advantage extend to all students? Probably not. And so it seems foolish to buy into a 'good school' zone, just for the schools, if your children *actually* stand to gain nothing more from them

That's poor logic. Even if your assumption is valid (which I notice you have no evidence supporting), you won't know if your child stands to gain or not. If there is a 50% chance that my child stands to gain, then there is value there.

tatupu70 says

And the other 99.99% of people wear shoes.

Sigh... I try so hard. I really do.

tatupu70 says

Even if your assumption is valid (which I notice you have no evidence supporting), you won't know if your child stands to gain or not.

Uh... does EVERY 'good' school have a 100% graduation rate? Probably not.

tatupu70 says

If there is a 50% chance that my child stands to gain, then there is value there.

What I think you're trying to get at here is that if you choose a focus on getting your kids into a 'good' school they have a greater probability of success in life... yes?

What I am trying to explain is that this is not necessarily the case. What if your kids are geniuses anyhow? No gain. What if your kids are untrainable dullards? No gain there either. What if the 'good' school spends a horrendous amount of money per student, just to get a 9/10 'score'? Could be a school run by horribly incompetent people that pass on bad learning skills to your kids... say for instance the kids are just being trained to take standardized tests.

My point is that statistics (even fabricated ones) only communicate a small part of the situation. If you're serious about buying a place based on the local school situation, you had better make sure it will benefit you and your family. Otherwise you're wasting your money, and your kids' educational experience.

SF ace says

The median income doesn't reflect it, but the distribution is greater than anywhere in the world. There is a huge population that makes around minimum wage but there is also a huge population that makes $100 bucks an hour. The huge spread reflects the even bigger divergent how certain parents view schools.

I wouldn't call huge spread. I would call it a bimodal distribution (have not vs. have). So you're saying then that the schools are either percieved as good (i.e., wealthy) or bad (i.e., poor) based on local incomes/property base?

SF ace says

It's not obsessing, it's just having some standards.

Here's a link to the api score X $spent per student data from the article I cited above:

http://projects.californiawatch.org/school-district-spending/export-csv/

And this is what it looks like in graph form:

No strong relationship between $ spent and api score. Haves nots and haves seem to have similar 'quality' schools on a coarse level, based on api scores. So how do you define standards for choosing a school district, given the poor predictive power of $ spent per student? Seems like the parents' divergent views are broadly wrong.

SF ace says

I didn't say more money means better performance.

OK, you were describing how 'some parents' view the economic divide as a predictor for good schools. It was not clear whether you were also of the same mindset as 'some parents' or not.

SF ace says

API in itself is simple and easily measurable. For me, that's a 940+ elementary school, 920+ MS and 900+ HS. That's the starting point

I agree that a standardized test-based score is simple and only the starting point. Based on your criteria, You are starting with the (approximately) the top ~6.5% of schools (that are not evenly distributed geographically btw) in California. What other standards do you use?

Being in a high income area is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a public school to have a real high API. Or to put it differently, I do not believe you will find a public high school with an API above 850 in Ca. that isn't in a high income area.

If schools are run half way well, then the higher spending per student is going to mean higher paid teachers AND smaller class sizes, this is on top of a high percentage of college educated parents, who have high academic expectations for their children.

(note, APIs are generally higher in elementary than in high schools)

SF ace says

In a 950 API, 95% of the students probably fall somewhere between 850 and 990. Esstentially every student performs above school target of 800.

In a 800 API, school, 95% students probably fall somewhere between 650 and 950. Essentially 55% performs above school target benchmark.

Do you have a reference for this? Thanks.

SF ace says

Everyone who bought in Cupertino know this clearly.

How many schools are there in Cupertino? These were the 900+ schools in Santa Clara County - only one clearly in Cupertino.

(county) (school) (attendance) ($/student) (api)

Santa Clara Los Altos Elementary 4207.4 9549 965
Santa Clara Saratoga Union Elementary 2196.5|10547 965
Santa Clara Lakeside Joint Elementary 80.5 16421 963
Santa Clara Cupertino Union Elementary 17643.9 7590 951
Santa Clara Loma PrietaJoint UnionElementary386.5|11201935
Santa Clara Palo Alto Unified 11252.3 13376 925
Santa Clara Los Gatos Union Elementary2835.3 9311 921
Santa Clara Union Elementary 4583.8 7271 905

marcus says

If schools are run half way well, then the higher spending is going to mean higher paid teachers AND smaller class sizes, this is on top of a high percentage of college educated parents, who have high academic
expectations for their children.

And if not, how is the money spent?

marcus says

Being in a high income area is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a public school to have a real high API. Or to put it differently, I do not believe you will find a public high school with an API above 850 in Ca. that isn't in a high income area.

county/ district/ expend_per_ada_student/ api_2010
Ventura Conejo Valley Unified 7687 866
Ventura Mesa Union Elementary 7617 854
Ventura Pleasant Valley School 7167 863
Tulare Columbine Elementary 6712 878
Tehama Evergreen Union Elementary 7147 864
Tehama Richfield Elementary 7112 858
Sutter Browns Elementary 6804 853
Stanislaus Gratton Elementary 7472 887
Stanislaus Hickman Community Charter 6192 852
Sonoma Bennett Valley Union Elementary 6908 883
Sonoma Gravenstein Union Elementary 6479 870
Sonoma Liberty Elementary 7990 913
Sonoma Mark West Union Elementary 7639 854
Sonoma Rincon Valley Union Elementary 7913 873
Sonoma Waugh Elementary 7600 903
Siskiyou Mt. Shasta Union Elementary 7824 874
Shasta Grant Elementary 7805 890
Shasta Millville Elementary 7712 906
Santa Cruz Scotts Valley Unified 6880 879
Santa Clara Cupertino Union Elementary 7590 951
Santa Clara Evergreen Elementary 7418 874
Santa Clara Union Elementary 7271 905
San Mateo Burlingame Elementary 7356 892
San Mateo Millbrae Elementary 7447 880
San Joaquin Lammersville Elementary 6170 862
San Joaquin Oak View Union Elementary 6454 862
San Diego Bonsall Union Elementary 7317 853
San Diego Carlsbad Unified 7927 859
San Diego Poway Unified 7216 883
San Diego San Marcos Unified 7493 853
San Diego San Pasqual Union Elementary 7812 874
San Diego Santee Elementary 7281 860
San Bernardino Alta Loma Elementary 7012 858
San Bernardino Etiwanda Elementary 6560 872
San Benito Southside Elementary 6409 894
Riverside Temecula Valley Unified 7388 856
Placer Dry Creek Joint Elementary 6506 861
Placer Eureka Union Elementary 7882 897
Placer Loomis Union Elementary 6691 895
Placer Placer Hills Union Elementary 7121 881
Placer Rocklin Unified 6879 874
Placer Roseville City Elementary 6697 866
Orange Brea-Olinda Unified 7271 864
Orange Capistrano Unified 7246 862
Orange Cypress Elementary 7395 877
Orange Fountain Valley Elementary 6981 892
Orange Fullerton Elementary 7290 855
Orange Huntington Beach City Elementary 7178 889
Orange Irvine Unified 7606 916
Orange Los Alamitos Unified 6878 904
Orange Ocean View Elementary 7874 857
Orange Saddleback Valley Unified 7472 859
Orange Tustin Unified 7096 850
Nevada Pleasant Ridge Union Elementary 7626 857
Monterey Lagunita Elementary 6991 935
Monterey Spreckels Union Elementary 6322 855
Monterey Washington Union Elementary 6908 903
Merced McSwain Union Elementary 6667 869
Merced Plainsburg Union Elementary 5874 863
Los Angeles Arcadia Unified 7542 922
Los Angeles El Segundo Unified 7733 881
Los Angeles Glendora Unified 7130 854
Los Angeles Hermosa Beach City Elementary 7527 936
Los Angeles Las Virgenes Unified 7742 882
Los Angeles Lowell Joint Elementary 7143 862
Los Angeles Manhattan Beach Unified 7467 926
Los Angeles Newhall Elementary 7056 896
Los Angeles Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified 7812 912
Los Angeles Redondo Beach Unified 7991 868
Los Angeles Saugus Union Elementary 7663 866
Los Angeles South Pasadena Unified 7647 911
Los Angeles Temple City Unified 7440 885
Los Angeles Torrance Unified 7505 853
Los Angeles Walnut Valley Unified 7197 898
Lassen Richmond Elementary 6092 870
Kern Fruitvale Elementary 6904 857
Imperial Magnolia Union Elementary 7907 865
Imperial Mccabe Union Elementary 6330 864
Humboldt Fieldbrook Elementary 7099 858
Humboldt Hydesville Elementary 7393 870
Humboldt Jacoby Creek Elementary 6803 909
Glenn Capay Joint Union Elementary 6108 857
Glenn Plaza Elementary 6515 875
Fresno Clay Joint Elementary 6367 871
Fresno Clovis Unified 7638 866
El Dorado Buckeye Union Elementary 6550 887
El Dorado Camino Union Elementary 7648 880
El Dorado Gold Trail Union Elementary 7515 861
El Dorado Rescue Union Elementary 6593 888
Contra Costa San Ramon Valley Unified 7824 916
Contra Costa Walnut Creek Elementary 7345 907
Butte Manzanita Elementary 7004 879
Alameda Castro Valley Unified 7429 854
Alameda Dublin Unified 7945 878
Alameda Fremont Unified 7449 868
Alameda Pleasanton Unified 7599 906

I am not familiar with all these areas, but when filtering for less than 8K and scores greater than 850 there is at least one place that I would not consider "high income": Castro Valley Unified

terriDeaner says

What I am trying to explain is that this is not necessarily the case. What if your kids are geniuses anyhow? No gain. What if your kids are untrainable dullards? No gain there either

And I'm saying, how do you know? Put a genius in a bad environment, who's to say he wouldn't end up in jail. There are a lot of smart people in prison. You seem to be arguing genetics is the only important thing and environment doesn't matter. I think you're wrong.

terriDeaner says

My point is that statistics (even fabricated ones) only communicate a small part of the situation. If you're serious about buying a place based on the local school situation, you had better make sure it will benefit you and your family. Otherwise you're wasting your money, and your kids' educational experience.

I think that goes without saying. I thought we were assuming good schools were good with this post. If you want to discuss how to evaluate a good school, that's a whole different topic...

leoj707 says

I am not familiar with all these areas, but when filtering for less than 8K and scores greater than 850 there is at least one place that I would not consider "high income": Castro Valley Unified

Leo, you're a smart guy, I think, but try to read carefully.

A few comments up, I said this:

marcus says

(note, APIs are generally higher in elementary than in high schools)

Right before that I had said this:

marcus says

Being in a high income area is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a public school to have a real high API. Or to put it differently, I do not believe you will find a public high school with an API above 850 in Ca. that isn't in a high income area.

Please note "high school." You proceded to give a list of elementary schools with higher APIs.

I am a teacher, and I know what I am talking about. Also, there are plenty of pretty darn good high schools with APIs lower than 850. I was just saying you won't find a high school with that high of an API that's not in a high income area. I'm not going to prove this to you, but I challenge you to find one. (don't give me a list of 20 and make check the income). If you think I'm wrong find one HIGH SCHOOL, with an API 850 or higher that's not a high income area.

An API of 850 is VERY high for a public high school. Remember, public schools take take everyone, including all the special ed kids for that area.

As a parent, I will research the best schools in an area to find a house. It is usually my first consideration. If you have a choice, why would you not try and get your kids into the best public school? Parents want the best opportunity for their children. However, I will not put the family at a bankruptcy risk just for the best public school education. I am smart enough to cover any gaps with my children a moderate performing school would have.

To answer your original question... Yes it is a consideration for parents. However, some parents like myself and my wife who have graduate level educations are willing to put in the work with our kids if there are gaps. If you have a choice, why would you not assist your kids in the betterment of their education through good schools and participation?

marcus says

Please note "high school." You proceded to give a list of elementary schools with higher APIs.

Yep, I stand corrected. Castro Valley Unified does include Castro Valley High, but it gets around and 806 API score.

leoj707 says

edvard2 says

Do parents obsess too much over schools?

I feel that the short answer is yes. People attribute too much of a child's "success" to the school; while studies have shown that parent involvement is the single greatest factor in a child's success at school.

This is a great point. After a long day of work its hard to make the time and effort to talk with a young child about how their day went, what they are learning/thinking about, etc; to come up with activities which involve you and the child interacting (as opposed to just getting them out of your hair for a bit). But that is exactly what a child needs most. Unfortunately, its a lot easier to point the finger at schools and teachers.

Here is what many parents might not understand about a schools API score.

If a school is mixed, for example it has a lot of high income and low income, and in between, this can be diverse in a way that provides an interesting environment, and is ideal in many ways.

Such a school may have a significant number of lower performing students but alos great programs and social opportunities (school leadership, student government, sports, band, theater etc) . And there are classes that are tracked (even if that is somewhat of a taboo concept these days. That is regular classes and honors classes, and AP classes. So there can be a lot of very high performing students in the same school.

This is a very real world diverse environment where there is a lot to learn in addition to academics. And research proves that its the very best environment for low income students, because they see A LOT of examples of "cool" kids who are in to school, and its easier for them to feel, "hey that's doable, I can do that."

There is absolutely no reason that a student at that type of school, who graduates near the top of their class and takes a lot of AP courses, can't go to the very best Ivy league schools, or any one of many other great schools. Especially if there is a magnet program, within the school.

The API, not being high, tells you about the average student score on standardized tests. This is one piece of information, but it's not the whole story.

Get in to the school and find out about honors classes, AP classes. You can even probably find out what colleges the best students at the school got scholarships to.

Diversity is not a bad thing (contrary to how some may feel).

marcus says

The API, not being high, tells you about the average student score on standardized tests. This is one piece of information, but it's not the whole story.

Agreed.

I haven't read every single reply in this thread carefully, although I spot-checked them.

Generally, I feel there's a tendency to hyper-optimize within the upper middle class/upper class contingent even more than there used to be. I'm not sure if this is because the echo boom from the baby boom made schooling significantly more competitive than it used to be, and globalization and population increases made the job market more competitive than it used to be, or something else.

Often, it's a combination of laziness, being overly risk-averse, ignorance of what your child wants and how to respond to your child, and general insecurity that causes this for some people. When I read some people's responses on these sorts of threads, some of the posts are dripping with *the parent's* unique viewpoint or insecurity, but the person has never referenced their child's viewpoints or unique properties when making the decision. This is bizarre to me.

Generally speaking, most upper middle class kids are likely to stay in the upper middle class or better if they are motivated and ambitious. For the kids that aren't motivated and ambitious, putting them in a hyper-optimized school environment probably won't do much, and they'll probably be that kid smoking pot in the school parking lot with the burnouts. But that's just a fact of life -- your SES is likely to stay similar to what it was, but the motivated and ambitious people are the ones who are most likely to move up or stay the same.

It's also hard to talk about this without talking about race. It's not politically correct to do so either. The fact of the matter is that you can look, for example, at California API scores and see great disparities between races. For some people, there is a desire to avoid the "undesirables," whether justified in some cases or not. I think diversity can be valuable for certain things, but there's also a tendency in the Bay Area to value diversity for diversity sake rhetorically, but ignore it in reality. Or maybe people value diversity until it means their kids get a slightly less good education.

Parental involvement in schools also matters. There have been good examples of parents being able to make a difference in certain cities' public schools that aren't known for having significant resources (e.g. LAUSD), and in some cases the parents can band together to raise money for certain activities they want for their kids.

Genetics certainly make a difference. Environment certainly makes a difference. But what also makes a difference is your individual kid. Have you ever seen a family that was comfortable/well-off, and at least one of their kids is a high-achiever, and at least one of their kids is a bum and is in their 30s without ever having a real job? It happens all the time.

The problem is that many parents hyper-optimize without responding to their kid adequately. If your kid isn't motivated, putting them in the Cupertino school district isn't going to do all that much. And even if it helps because a high tide raises all boats, some of those kids don't end up very well off in college and the job market because they aren't motivated. The parent never took the time to figure out what motivates the child and what the child is interested in, and this transfers to the rest of their life too.

Some people decide that even a high rated public school isn't good enough, but then send their kid to a crappy private school just because it's private. I'm not sure that accomplishes much either. Sometimes this also has to do with the parents' insecurities and fears, rather than responding to the kid.

To one other point, I'm not sure what ideology has to do with it. I know conservative Bay Area parents who hyper-optimize and also liberal ones. I'm not sure why it's worth discussing. If you are focusing on this, you are not focusing on your kid, and your kid probably doesn't care about this.

corntrollio says

Generally, I feel there's a tendency to hyper-optimize within the upper middle class/upper class contingent even more than there used to be. [...] Often, it's a combination of laziness, being overly risk-averse, ignorance of what your child wants and how to respond to your child, and general insecurity that causes this for some people.

Agreed.

corntrollio says

Genetics certainly make a difference. Environment certainly makes a difference. But what also makes a difference is your individual kid. Have you ever seen a family that was comfortable/well-off, and at least one of their kids is a high-achiever, and at least one of their kids is a bum and is in their 30s without ever having a real job? It happens all the time.

The problem is that many parents hyper-optimize without responding to their kid adequately. If your kid isn't motivated, putting them in the Cupertino school district isn't going to do all that much. And even if it helps because a high tide raises all boats, some of those kids don't end up very well off in college and the job market because they aren't motivated. The parent never took the time to figure out what motivates the child and what the child is interested in, and this transfers to the rest of their life too.

Also agreed.

corntrollio says

Some people decide that even a high rated public school isn't good enough, but then send their kid to a crappy private school just because it's private. I'm not sure that accomplishes much either. Sometimes this also has to do with the parents' insecurities and fears, rather than responding to the kid.

Just another level of denial, as you say.

Hey, that was 1k comments for me... do I get a gold star or a free t-shirt or something?

terriDeaner says

Hey, that was 1k comments for me... do I get a gold star or a free t-shirt or something?

Just the satisfaction of a job well done.

leoj707 says

terriDeaner says

Hey, that was 1k comments for me... do I get a gold star or a free t-shirt or something?

Just the satisfaction of a job well done.

Sigh... but this 'satistfaction' that you speak of won't go on my PERMANENT RECORD. I need something that can be measured or graded so it can be commodified. Then I can hold it over others to gain greater social status, and ultimate fulfillment!!!

Well, I have multiple kids in public school. And we would fall into the obsessive about schools category. Here is why for us. One of our school districts we lived in taught the kids nihongo, mandarin, music, art teacher and science teacher all from contributions from parents or higher taxes collected from properties, there also wasn't as many kids who who were so out of control from behavior and academic stand point so the teacher could teach at a higher level. Also class size was at 19 per teacher so again if you have 19 versus 30 kids to teach more teaching just gets done, The public school we are at now is spanish immersion, they have wonderful art, science, pe, music that the kids love! they love school they will be at minimum bilingual and at the high school level maybe i move them to lower performing school they ace grades and get scholarships to college and it really ends up costing me less in the long run. Who knows. For us the schools are worth the extra cost in housing. It costs the district $10,000+ per child to educate at this level which covers our housing costs. Yes parent involvement is the key,but having your kids where other parents are involved also helps tremendously. My goal is to have my children give more to the world than they take and a big part of that is to properly educate and help them find that capacity and to me knowledge(at this point academics) gives them the power to do that.

Done! says

Conservative kids are motivated to get good grades to spare them the wrath of a disappointed conservative parent, in ALL demographics.

Worked for us.

I think Liberals are very misguided, they think schools alone will solve all their parenting mistakes and inadequacies or lack of manners taught. They just don't understand that school is no substitute for good parenting. And when they fail their personal responsibility they get stuck in their cognitive dissonance loop asking for government help.