Posts
When I think about my aspirations for my boys (ages 3 and 1), I take as a given that they will do fine academically. Maybe that’s naive, but I just assume that they will end up going to a good college, find interesting work, and so forth. What I want for them is to enjoy the ride along the way: Make close friends, have plenty of time for play, learn to be part of a team (athletic or otherwise), tap into their artistic nature, spend as much time outdoors as possible. These inclinations led my wife and I to pick a Waldorf preschool for their early years. We’re not sure we’ll stick with such an “alternative” approach over the long term. But I surely don’t want my boys anywhere near a “testing factory.”Good enough is good enough.
[snip]
But with a degree of affluence comes a degree of luxury. Confident that their kids will do OK academically and vocationally, I bet that many upper-middle class parents want to reach for something more: Emotional health, spiritual fulfillment, a sense of social responsibility. And thus the frills that Lewis derides (like all manner of extra-curricular activities) become quite important. And as for the test scores–well, who cares if they are really, really high or just really high?
Understanding upper-middle-class parents
Mike Petrilli is an Executive Editor of Education Next and an Executive Vice President of the Fordham Foundation.
and see:
decline at the top
nominally high-performing schools
42 comments:
In my experience, the kind of parent who takes as a given that his kids will do fine academically also takes as a given that his kids should have really, really high SAT scores when the time comes.
His post is all over the place and makes no coherent argument. He (grudgingly) accepts the existence of those who value academics (pejoratively labelling them "Tiger Moms"), but then gets lost in some sort of discussion about whether rich or poor should get one type or another of education. The emphasis is on others (like him, I guess) influencing what kind of schools should be developed using government money.
His kids haven't started school yet. Just wait until his boys get to Everyday Math and he gets a note from the school to practice math facts with them. He will then be able to calibrate the meaning of "value academics".
I'm kind of boggled by the idea that "upper-middle class parents" are looking to government schools to provide "Emotional health, spiritual fulfillment, a sense of social responsibility." Sounds like outsourcing parenting to me.
This isn't just some guy off the street. He is an Executive Vice President at the Fordham Foundation.
He comes out with extraordinarily vague comments like:
"But I surely don’t want my boys anywhere near a “testing factory.”"
and:
"When I think about my aspirations for my boys (ages 3 and 1), I take as a given that they will do fine academically. Maybe that’s naive, but I just assume that they will end up going to a good college, find interesting work, and so forth."
"and so forth" Yup. That's really naive.
I think Petrilli may be right that many suburban parents are feeling so confident about their children’s academic achievements that they feel they can place a priority on allowing their children to enjoy the ride along the way. But they may be sadly mistaken.
By some measures, I live in an affluent district - $23,389 per pupil spending each year and 90% of graduates go on to college. But I recently learned that only 59% of high school graduates are considered “college ready, apparently because they can’t get at least 50% of the answers correct on the state algebra 1 test.
At age 3, you may be able to tell whether your child is likely to be good at language; less so for math. And you certainly know that they have middle class or even upper middle class advantages. But what you don't know is whether your child will buy into the whole school thing. By the end of high school, you may be dealing with a child who resists school, or who is more engaged by a non-academic subject. Or by something outside school entirely. All by way of saying to Mr. Petrilli, don't think you can plan your kids' life quite so thoroughly when they're toddlers.
Grace, one of the issues in your district (and mine) is that many parents here do not have high aspirations for their children. For example, the family across the street owned an auto repair shop, and just assumed their sons would go into the business. One son did a stint in the military and then went into the business, the other tried college and promptly flunked out, then went into the business. This family placed no academic demands on their kids, had no books in the house, and certainly did not send them to tutors. I know many families in our district like that. I bet their kids make up the bulk of that 41% who are not college ready.
Bonnie, that is not a case of low aspirations, but of aspirations that don't depend on a college degree. Not the same thing at all. We should be grateful that these kids didn't amass tens of thousands of loans for an education they turned out not to need.
I shouldn't have used the term "low asirations". How about "non-college aspiration"? Regardless, these kids and their families do not see being "college-ready" as an important goal, so they don't spend the time or take the courses necessary to get to that goal.
I honestly think that the goal of having all high school graduates be "college-ready" is unrealistic in most districts.
Bonnie - I don't personally know of any familes in our district who do not aspire for their children to attend college. I do know of many who look at state schools as perfectly fine, but they DO want their chldren to get a college degree. Lots of tutoring, as well.
I would disagree that most of the 41% of kids who are not college ready are similar to your neighbor's kids, but I think our school administrators might agree that the problem is with the families.
His post is all over the place and makes no coherent argument.
Absolutely.
I bet their kids make up the bulk of that 41% who are not college ready.
Definitely not true here.
We have virtually no families who answer to that description, and we have 45% of our graduating seniors never having passed even one AP exam.
90 to 95% of our kids go to college.
My street may be different from yours. The families on our street generally seem to have the attitude that it would be nice if their kids went to college, but not anything worth losing sleep over. My neighbors include a plumber, someone who owns a pizza shop, and a guy who sells something or another to the horse industry. The people who owned the auto body shop moved a couple of years ago, as did the guy who had some kind of painting business out of his home. These are all families with kids.
The statistic showing that 90% go on to college could be misleading as well. The teen across the street went off to a college for a year and flunked out. He was just "trying out" college as a way to figure out what he wanted to do. He was never very serious about it. His sister went away to a college for a year, then came back and went to Westchester Community College. Both kids would have counted in that 90% figure. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that happens.
All by way of saying to Mr. Petrilli, don't think you can plan your kids' life quite so thoroughly when they're toddlers.
THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS!
MANY families have kids who don't buy into school --- not because of the families, but because of the school. (There's a reason why Dan Willingham titled his book "Why Kids Don't Like School.")
If you have a kid who's disengaging from school, that problem is radically NOT going to be solved by more clubs and character education.
The problem of a high-SES student disengaging from school is going to be made worse by the philosophy Petrilli espouses in his post.
That's why you don't want your affluent high school to believe that it's more important for students to be happy than to get into selective colleges, as mine does.
When the high school believes that what matters is happiness, the high school doesn't see underachievement as a problem --- or even as a reality.
We had some very contentious discussions about this very matter in the high school site committee, which I served on for two years.
Lack of happiness is a problem the school concerns itself with; lack of achievement is not.
During one meeting, the vice principal told me he'd just spoken with the parents of a super-talented student who was getting Cs.
He asked me whether I believed that the school had an obligation to try to move his achievement up.
I said yes.
I am not sure when passing an AP exam became a marker for college readiness. Back in my day, only the very top took AP classes. At the university where I teach now, we very rarely see students who have taken an AP course.
I think you guys forget that there is a wide diversity of colleges out there - everything from the CC's to Harvard - and they all count as colleges for the purposes of these statistics. A kid who is going to a CC, or a fifth tier 4 year school, is not going to bother with AP.
I'm kind of boggled by the idea that "upper-middle class parents" are looking to government schools to provide "Emotional health, spiritual fulfillment, a sense of social responsibility."
No kidding.
This has been a huge problem for me: I don't need a school to provide 'emotional health.'
I need a school to TEACH MATH (and English & writing & science, etc, etc.)
I am fully capable of dealing with emotional health.
I am not capable of teaching physics.
Mike Petrilli worked in the Bush administration; he was involved in NCLB.
I find his post mind-boggling.
But I have to say: although I supported NCLB, I was always troubled by the implicit white schools good/black schools bad dichotomy that the school seemed to embody and certainly reinforced in the minds of upper-middle-class parents.
And here it is, explicitly stated by Petrilli.
Affluent kids need different schools.
"and so forth" Yup. That's really naive.
oh man
"and so forth" covers a HUGE amount of territory.
Also a huge amount of tutoring.
Catherine, most parents want the schools to be concerned with happiness rather than academics. The schools just reflect our communities. I know a few parents in my district who worry about the academics, but more who are concerned whether the teacher makes their child feel appreciated. I have learned to be quiet when talking with other moms about the school, because my views are not shared by most.
One of the things that surprised me when my kids started kindergarten was how badly prepared many of the kids seemed to be. I remember talking to one mom who was almost proud that her daughter entered kindergarten knowing NONE of her letters.
"I am not sure when passing an AP exam became a marker for college readiness. Back in my day, only the very top took AP classes. At the university where I teach now, we very rarely see students who have taken an AP course."
I went to a really so-so rural high school of about 360 students with a total of 2 AP courses. (The graduating class size was under 70--lots of attrition.) AP English had only 6 students, so it was pretty elite. AP US History had a lot of average/good, but not elite students--there were probably 20-30 students in that class. That was about 20 years ago. There were definitely more kids in AP US History than were headed to 4-year colleges. And this was way before the everyone-must-get-AP frenzy of recent years.
"I remember talking to one mom who was almost proud that her daughter entered kindergarten knowing NONE of her letters."
Please, why?
Was the idea that the kid had experienced a more authentic childhood because no time had been spent learning letters?
-Mark Roulo
The statistic showing that 90% go on to college could be misleading as well.
Yes, I hear about lots of kids transferring from their 4-year schools to our local community college, and of some dropping out completely. The district seems to be proud of that "90% go on to college" number, but it doesn't tell the whole story . . . obviously.
During the post-war baby boom, few children entered kindergarten knowing their letters, including the children of well-educated parents. What they did know was how to hold a conversation, an extended conversation about something other than themselves and their immediate concerns. Also, they knew how to get along in a group (probably because of the large number of siblings in their households), and how to defer gratification. They were ready to learn, although there was no reading instruction in K at that time.
Why would a parent brag that her kid doesn't know her letters before kindergarten? Maybe it's a backlash against all the pressure parents feel to have their kids know how to read before K. I could see that.
This particular woman, who owns a local deli, is just not that into academics. She used to go to our church so I know her well. She was a rocker and motorcycle girl back in the day, and now she is successful as a small business owner. She wants her kids to go to school for social reasons, not academic ones.
But that kindergarten class had many unprepared kids in it. That was why my son, who was already reading well, was ignored for months.
Even in the upper middle class, and even with attentive, college-educated, academically-oriented parents, there are some children who will choose their own path. Even in schools that use a strong, traditional curriculum. We need to realize that the older the child gets, the less we can mold her or him. When I read SteveH's posts about all the extra work he does with his son, and how they strategize together on how to do well and get into a top college, I'm glad for him that he has such a compliant son, but, wow, I know so many very bright kids who would implode with that amount of oversight. Including one of my own. All by way of saying, you can offer a good education and encourage conscientiousness, but at some point they do what they do. I agree that schools are way too interested in social skills and fun, but even when they are more academic, things can turn out other than how we would like.
I know so many very bright kids who would implode with that amount of oversight. Including one of my own.
Absolutely!
I don't know if you ever visited ktm back when my own son was imploding (around Christmastime, 8th grade), but Karen Pryor's Don't Shoot the Dog saved our bacon around here.
I actually reached the point where all we were doing was fighting about math, not actually doing math. Things were so contentious that it was obvious I either had to figure out another way or forget about C. learning math.
That's not to say you should try to clicker-train your son (which reminds me: I MUST get back to clicker-training young Andrew...), but it's a fantastic book for any parent, I believe.
C. is now old enough that he's starting to be leaving his teen rebellion, but even now we have ongoing low-level skirmishing over whatever it is I want him to do. Now that he's settled in doing SAT math, he's grousing about SAT grammar. It's good-natured grousing, but the fact is it's July and he hasn't done any SAT grammar study to speak of.
Ideally, I would have liked him to retake precalculus over the summer, since he learned nothing during the school year, but I couldn't sell either him or Ed on it & I gave up.
I agree that schools are way too interested in social skills and fun, but even when they are more academic, things can turn out other than how we would like.
This is a major source of frustration for me.
If a student doesn't 'naturally' take to academics & discipline, etc, then I want the school to kick in with supervised homework.
Given the taxes we're paying, and given the fact that the state of New York requires something along those lines ("Academic Intervention Services"), I really want to see it done.
I'd also like to see our school psychologists create 'positive behavior plans'---- that's not the term. There's a way of creating a school culture that constantly shapes and reinforces students to want to do what they ought to do. I can't remember the term for it.
I'd like to see schools create environments that have been consciously designed to build 'positive habits.'
Catherine, most parents want the schools to be concerned with happiness rather than academics.
My district is chock-a-block with competitive parents who want their kids to be admitted to the best schools on the planet.
I know those kids; I've seen how happy they are when they get accepted. They radiate joy.
Happiness vs. acceptance by a good college is a false dichotomy.
And I have to add, I have friends who edited or reviewed every paper their children wrote in high school (probably before high school too). My kids would not have stood for that. They are all great writers, but at the age of 14 could have benefited from my (also great) writing. Not gonna happen.
Yup - it is NOT easy involving yourself in a teen's school work, and it's easier with some kids than others.
I would put C. in the easy category, and it wasn't easy with him.
In my experience, when parents of older kids say they just want their kids to be happy (and I haven't heard this often) they are often keeping a positive attitude about a difficult and/or disappointing situation. In other words, "I just want him/her to be happy" is a healthy defense mechanism, not a Life Value.
I personally haven't met a parent who, given the choice between having his child attend Yale and having his child attend Mercy College, would choose Mercy College.
I don't say that to offend people whose kids are attending Mercy College. There are some great kids at Mercy.
I say this because I have yet to meet the parent parent who would be unhappy if his or her child did brilliantly well in school.
I have met parents who have taken a warm and supportive view of children who haven't done as well as they might have.
Totally OT, but ...
had no books in the house
Man, I just cannot even imagine this. I mean, I hear about it all the time, but ... man, I'm not sure there's a single room (or even any horizontal surfaces!) in my house without books.
My father worked in the book printing industry and my folks had thousands of books in their house. I inherited the sickness.
I would read the phone book if there was nothing else available. I compulsively read every road sign, billboard, WHATEVER, even when I'm driving down the road.
(You can't imagine what a boon it was for me when I could have my entire Kindle library on my phone. It was always like Sophie's Choice having to decide which paperback to stuff into my purse...)
"I have yet to meet the parent who would be unhappy if his/her child did brilliantly well in school."
Absolutely! and it's a very short step from that value to being UNhappy if a very bright child chooses not to focus on school. But it happens. It's not always a question of emotional disability or drug abuse; the parents may be holding out the value of applying oneself in school, the school may be offering the right incentives, and yet the offer is not taken. And what I'm trying to say is that the outcome to this situation is not necessarily bad. I'd choose Yale over Mercy College (which I've never heard of before), but I would not worry about a child who only worked hard enough to be able to go to (for example) Iowa State when she could have gone to University of Chicago if she'd kept her eyes on that prize. If you tell a child who's not mature enough or compliant enough or disciplined enough to sweat out high school as hard as they can, that their life will be a disappointment if they don't attend a first0rank college, that could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Catherine, more than a few kids in our town end up at Mercy College - and lots of the parents, if they got a college degree at all, got it at Mercy College. And even more at the working class village within our town.
Our town is changing, and becoming more like Dobbs Ferry and Scarsdale. But there is still a sizeable contingent of old school families, and I strongly suspect the values of these families rather than the schools (which are pretty good in comparison to the deplorable Southern schools I attended) are the problem in our college readiness rate.
"... my folks had thousands of books in their house. I inherited the sickness."
I don't think I have a sickness, but I just can't get rid of them. I don't like the thought that when I donate them to the church fair, most will end up in the dumpster at the end of the day. I hate the dollar-a-bag clearance at the end. Books are worth more than that. I look at all the books at the fair and I just want to take them home to protect them. I could give them to a used book store. That way, I will never see when they are euthanized.
If I ever get to design and build a house, it will have a large library with big long oak tables. Books will come in, but never go out. OK. Maybe it is a sickness. I guess one form of the sickness is when you are in someone's home or office and you sneak covert looks at what books they have on their shelves. Worse yet is when you can't resist and go over and start taking out books to read. Well, they should hide them if they don't want people to do that.
Kindles just don't cut it. They don't smell the same. They don't feel the same. Maybe that's where the sickness comes from. But my life is quickly being reduced to a PC --> laptop --> slate PC --> USB stick. I can carry it on a chain around my neck. Heck, forget the USB stick. I'll just keep it on the cloud, paint all my rooms white, have floor to ceiling windows, and use wifi. Maybe I can do that for art - just put big flat panels on the wall. van Gogh one second; cute baby pictures the next.
In the middle of this book "The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People Are Educating Themselves" which is very thought provoking in the rich vs poor social realm of education...
I agree with everyone that Petrilli's ideas are all over the place... stopped reading Fordham a while back as a result. (sorry Fordham supporters) He is the Executive Vice President after all...
>>"I have yet to meet the parent who would be unhappy if his/her child did brilliantly well in school."
You would if you were in my district. Running a 98-100 average solely from attending class (ie all homework done in class b/c it's so easy, no studying) is indicative of the need for more challenge. Parents of these students speak up at school board meetings and ask for honors science and math and AP as well as reinstatement of IB and compacted Foreign Language II/III. However, the board considers meeting the academic needs of ALL children elitist rather than inclusive so the parents might as well be spitting in the wind. With the state only allowing a transfer in of 5.5 credits, the parents I know are not even bothering with transfer in..they just pay for distance learning starting in elementary school (for math students) and move on with life.
I personally haven't met a parent who, given the choice between having his child attend Yale and having his child attend Mercy College, would choose Mercy College.
You obviously haven't met my FIL. He took an attitude that just because some no-name college was good enough for him and another no-name college was good enough for MIL, a school like that should be good enough for my DH.
Fortunately, a teacher at his Catholic H.S. encouraged DH to have higher aspirations. When DH got accepted to Stanford, FIL said that if he went, it would have to be on his own dime. The money that FIL and MIL had saved for DH's college would be split among his younger siblings.
DH got a ROTC scholarship for 80%, and cobbled together an assortment of other scholarships to pay for another 18%. The remaining 2% he was able to earn through part-time and summer work.
I still don't understand FIL's attitude because it's completely the opposite of my parents' and basically everyone else in the town where I grew up. I suspect it's a class thing because I grew up upper-middle-class and DH grew up lower-middle-class.
Ditto, CW. I personally know such parents - they are my parents, who wouldn't know the difference between a Mercy College and a Yale.
Post a Comment