I think that the consequences of the opposite of "high achieving" needs to be put into the proper perspective. Let's call that "low achieving". The article focu

I think that the consequences of the opposite of "high achieving" needs to be put into the proper perspective. Let's call that "low achieving". The article focuses on the problems of HAS (high achieving schools) without really categorizing what the alternatives are. Many folks don't understand what "low achieving" can ACTUALLY mean. It's not just slightly below grade level performance in reading and math. In many places it's 25%+ drop-out rates, half of the graduates not reading at a 5th grade level (illiteracy), overcrowded classrooms and forget about college except for small populations of exceptional students with driven parents. How prevalent are schools like that? Very. Most major metro areas have public school districts like this. This is what "neighborhood school" means for many people. To make it worse, many of these troubled schools have no "safety net". If a student in a low achieving school has a mild learning disability, or even just a little more hard knocks than they can handle there's no way for them to get accommodated and as a result their learning goes off the rails and never recovers. And the resultant behavioral problems negatively impact their peers who are unlucky enough to share their classroom. Because of what "low-achieving" can mean, the following suggestion by the article is an ABSOLUTE HARD NO for many parents, especially immigrant parents, regardless of what "the facts" say. [...]If parents knew the facts and behaved reasonably, they would deliberately avoid an HAS for their kids. They would move out of that high-achievement school district. They would use the money otherwise spent on tutoring or tuitions for more enjoyable family pursuits. Here I present some of those facts, as documented by many research studies[...]