3 ms·

A New Study Reveals Much About How Parents Really Choose Schools

23 points by tokenadult 12y ago

ThomPete 12y ago
I am not sure I understand the article or the findings or whats it's trying to claim. My oldest son is in a charter school the most hotly debated one of them: Success Academy. Its biggest problem is not attracting kids but building more schools and making sure they keep getting funding. His school is in Williamsburg and some people come from upper east to attend the school (the kids meet at 7.30) Furthermore of course distance is always going to be an issue for some but I frankly don't see it in real life as most kids don't get to choose at all. Maybe there is something I am missing.
- russelluresti 12y ago
  Yeah, the article is a bit weird. It's looking at something VERY specific and not really the broader "are charter schools good?" argument. The idea behind the article is this: people claim that charter schools, known for better academic performance, will cause public schools to increase the quality of their own academics because parents will be able to choose to send their student to the better school. Basically, the idea that increased competition will increase quality across the board. The article says that this may not be the case because academic performance isn't as significant a factor as people might think. Most people will say that, if given the choice between a Grade A school and a Grade C school that they would send their children to the Grade A school. But after looking at the actual decisions made, it appears that many people would be fine with a Grade C school if the Grade A school was 2 miles further away. Or if the Grade C school had a football program and the Grade A school didn't. In other words, if public schools and charter schools are competing, they're not actually competing on academics (since parents aren't using academic performance as a deciding factor). Instead, they're competing on other factors: location, extracurriculars, etc. And if the schools aren't competing on academics, then there's no reason to believe that increased choice will create increased academic performance across the board. At least, that's the point the article is trying to argue.
doctorpangloss 12y ago
> Poorer families care more about other factors — and less about academics. The study split families up into thirds based on the median income in their census tract. What they found was that the lowest-income New Orleans families were even more likely to pick schools that were close by, that offered extended days, and that had football and band in high school — and, conversely, they had a weaker preference for schools based on test scores. Are we convinced that choosing schools by their test scores is the best way to choose schools? The researchers started with a simple premise. Charter schools deliver equality only if parents prefer schools with higher test scores. Clearly some parents don't. I can't imagine a universe where a better football program actually ends up being a wiser choice for your child than better test scores. Does anyone think we're better off, on average, even considering football to be more important? It just seems like test scores being more important is far and away the right answer. So for me, the real question is, is there a way to convince parents that test scores are really all that matters without resorting to full-blown jingoism? More precisely, do we have to coerce the idea that test scores matter more than football? Effective education systems have all sorts of coercion, and the most successful ones tend to treat test scores as the #1 priority. German high school students are tracked into different tiers of educational attainment. German laws restrict the ability of private schooling to provide an alternative to the national system's decision, "Test scores are important, your child is stupid, and he's going to become an apprentice." Anecdotally, I've learned that some Korean parents track their poor-performing daughters into performance arts (i.e., playing violin and singing). And in my top-ranked public high school, we ghettoize students into honors/non-honors starting Freshman year. My takeaway from these high-performing scholastic environments: the child doesn't choose how important test scores are. The system chooses for them, and it chose "test scores are important." If charter schools are to succeed, and indeed any objective educational reform, I tend to agree with the implied argument of these researchers. Test scores are more important. Now, what do we do with the people who disagree?
- jhulla 12y ago
  By the way, do you have children? I ask because the choice of school is far more nuanced than picking the one with the best test scores. For example, a school with the highest test scores may not be ideal for a child that struggles with concentration and self-discipline. That child may find him/herself lost among more dedicated peers. For poorer families time is an incredibly valuable resource. When you earn minimum wage, a school that offers inexpensive or free childcare after school is a net financial gain; the parent can work with out paying extra for child care. Poor families and their children who cannot foresee outcomes after finishing high school other than joblessness or minimum wage jobs optimize differently; a better football program in the here and now may be a better choice than better academics with an uncertain payoff in the future.

23 points by tokenadult 12y ago

I am not sure I understand the article or the findings or whats it's trying to claim. My oldest son is in a charter school the most hotly debated one of them: Success Academy. Its biggest problem is not attracting kids but building more schools and making sure they keep getting funding. His school is in Williamsburg and some people come from upper east to attend the school (the kids meet at 7.30) Furthermore of course distance is always going to be an issue for some but I frankly don't see it in real life as most kids don't get to choose at all. Maybe there is something I am missing.

russelluresti 12y ago
Yeah, the article is a bit weird. It's looking at something VERY specific and not really the broader "are charter schools good?" argument. The idea behind the article is this: people claim that charter schools, known for better academic performance, will cause public schools to increase the quality of their own academics because parents will be able to choose to send their student to the better school. Basically, the idea that increased competition will increase quality across the board. The article says that this may not be the case because academic performance isn't as significant a factor as people might think. Most people will say that, if given the choice between a Grade A school and a Grade C school that they would send their children to the Grade A school. But after looking at the actual decisions made, it appears that many people would be fine with a Grade C school if the Grade A school was 2 miles further away. Or if the Grade C school had a football program and the Grade A school didn't. In other words, if public schools and charter schools are competing, they're not actually competing on academics (since parents aren't using academic performance as a deciding factor). Instead, they're competing on other factors: location, extracurriculars, etc. And if the schools aren't competing on academics, then there's no reason to believe that increased choice will create increased academic performance across the board. At least, that's the point the article is trying to argue.

doctorpangloss 12y ago

> Poorer families care more about other factors — and less about academics. The study split families up into thirds based on the median income in their census tract. What they found was that the lowest-income New Orleans families were even more likely to pick schools that were close by, that offered extended days, and that had football and band in high school — and, conversely, they had a weaker preference for schools based on test scores. Are we convinced that choosing schools by their test scores is the best way to choose schools? The researchers started with a simple premise. Charter schools deliver equality only if parents prefer schools with higher test scores. Clearly some parents don't. I can't imagine a universe where a better football program actually ends up being a wiser choice for your child than better test scores. Does anyone think we're better off, on average, even considering football to be more important? It just seems like test scores being more important is far and away the right answer. So for me, the real question is, is there a way to convince parents that test scores are really all that matters without resorting to full-blown jingoism? More precisely, do we have to coerce the idea that test scores matter more than football? Effective education systems have all sorts of coercion, and the most successful ones tend to treat test scores as the #1 priority. German high school students are tracked into different tiers of educational attainment. German laws restrict the ability of private schooling to provide an alternative to the national system's decision, "Test scores are important, your child is stupid, and he's going to become an apprentice." Anecdotally, I've learned that some Korean parents track their poor-performing daughters into performance arts (i.e., playing violin and singing). And in my top-ranked public high school, we ghettoize students into honors/non-honors starting Freshman year. My takeaway from these high-performing scholastic environments: the child doesn't choose how important test scores are. The system chooses for them, and it chose "test scores are important." If charter schools are to succeed, and indeed any objective educational reform, I tend to agree with the implied argument of these researchers. Test scores are more important. Now, what do we do with the people who disagree?

jhulla 12y ago
By the way, do you have children? I ask because the choice of school is far more nuanced than picking the one with the best test scores. For example, a school with the highest test scores may not be ideal for a child that struggles with concentration and self-discipline. That child may find him/herself lost among more dedicated peers. For poorer families time is an incredibly valuable resource. When you earn minimum wage, a school that offers inexpensive or free childcare after school is a net financial gain; the parent can work with out paying extra for child care. Poor families and their children who cannot foresee outcomes after finishing high school other than joblessness or minimum wage jobs optimize differently; a better football program in the here and now may be a better choice than better academics with an uncertain payoff in the future.