How much do schools -for your kids- matter when deciding where to move?

July 21, 2005 12:36 PM

We're thinking of moving to a somewhat remote (and beautiful) area. We may not be able to afford a house in the "rich" town with the "good" schools. We might have to settle for a house in the affordable/poor town next door with the mediocre schools. How much will this choice of grade school and/or high school affect my kids for college, life, etc.?

(FYI - I don't think we want to home-school. And the kids are 5 and 2.) On one hand I worry (a little) about my kids getting screwed up by hanging around with stupid rich kids. On the other hand I worry (a lot) about them getting screwed up by being bored and miserable in a school with limited resources. Bonus points if you can share any feelings/anecdotes about moving with kids.

posted by anonymous to education (28 comments total)

As someone who jumped around schools a lot, and experienced both richer-than-us and poorer-than-us, I'd say that it would affect them quite a bit, but not necessarily in a predictable way.

That is, I'm more concerned with the types of connections they would make, the friends they would have, etc. as opposed to quality of schooling. But the thing is, you don't know where the awesome friends are; they could be on either side of the tracks. Similarly, a "cheerleader" teacher that your kids connect with and work with is more important than a school's financial resources, but again, you don't know where that teacher is.

It's probably best to have them around similar-income families, lest they feel like outliers when inviting friends over, etc. And if that fails, as they say, it's better to be a king in Hell than a servant in Heaven. If you want your kids to be runaway financial successes, they're much more likely to make the necessary connections on the rich side of town, no matter your personal income level. But it may be more difficult to get there than to "stay put", and remember the study that reveals there is no difference in happiness levels amongst different income brackets, as long as basic sustenance is met.

Also, I'd advise against jumping around districts like I did. It takes a while to develop rich friendships, and having to break them all off every few years really doesn't help.
posted by trevyn at 1:12 PM on July 21, 2005

AnecdoteFilter: My ex had custody of our son and lived in a mediocre area of metro Atlanta. Last year he was suspended twice for a day each time for skipping school. At the end of the year, he won his grade's award for Best Attendance.

Between hanging around stupid rich kids from educated families in a decent school system and hanging around stupid poor kids from ignorant families in mediocre school systems (generally because they are on a downhill slide), I pick the former, which is why my son is living with me now.
posted by mischief at 1:18 PM on July 21, 2005

I don't think the choice of schools will affect the kids for college, but it will affect them for life. For college, in the US at least, the committee generally looks at the standarized tests and his/her extracurricular activities.
But a bad experience at school, the place your kid will spend most of his waking life, could negatively affect his/her outlook on further education and possibly sociability. You could offset the negative signals kids gets from the public school by ensuring the kid is also immerged in positive environments like the arts or sports.
For people that move frequently, like diplomats every 2 or 3 years, I think it's best to look into boarding schools to give your kid a more stable environment.
posted by ruelle at 1:23 PM on July 21, 2005

I don't know if this is helpful to you, but there is a large academic literature on the (economic, especially) "returns to education." Google scholar is a reasonable place to start .
Many of the papers look specifically at school quality and the economic returns ie how much their school is likely to affect their lifetime earnings.

On the other hand, if you look at literature on intergenerational mobility you will find that the education and economic status of you, the parents, also makes a huge difference on the likely educational/economic attainment of your kids.

Sorry if this is all a bit too academic....
posted by cushie at 1:23 PM on July 21, 2005

High school and college success has less to do with the quality of school, per-se, than it does with the parents' involvement with their children's schooling. You don't have to home school, but meet with teachers and school administrators to discuss your child's education and the school's resources. Make sure your kids are doing their homework every day. Instill in them a love for reading and learning. Find out who their friends are and meet their parents.

I'm in college now, and I meet kids from all walks of life: poor kids who went to great high schools, middle-class kids who went to crappy high schools, and rich kids who went to prep schools like Philips Exeter. FWIF, the middle class kid who had one of the worst high school educations possible has a 3.9 GPA and the kid from Exeter dropped out.

Also, high school is a long way away for both your kids. I wouldn't worry about that yet - you might have the financial resources to move to the better school system by then. I don't think your kids would be harmed by moving from an ok grade school to an excellent high school.
posted by muddgirl at 1:24 PM on July 21, 2005

I attended a very small (100 person graduating class) school system. I was lucky in that I found that there were teachers there who cared and who would go the extra mile to provide a really stellar education. As a result, I went to an excellent college. Questions like these are so hard, because for every Little Mischief, there is a me, and the difference is all in the instructors and how involved you guys are as parents.
posted by Medieval Maven at 1:31 PM on July 21, 2005

Have you spoken with parents in both towns? Try to go to a PTA meeting or some other parent function in both towns to get the REAL scoop on the schools. I went to a slightly poorer school and while I appreciate that I associated with a much more economically diverse group of students, what sort of opportunities (both academic and social) did I miss out on? Could I have done better?

I was an overachiever in the "poorer" school and I lacked academic peers. I wish I had been able to take more advanced classes as well.
posted by k8t at 1:33 PM on July 21, 2005

I think your kids are a bit young to worry about how this will affect their choice of colleges. Worry about that as they approach high school.
posted by caddis at 1:44 PM on July 21, 2005

I agree that it's too soon to worry about it--any time before 6th or 7th grade, and it's pretty easy to make up any ground that you've missed.

I don't know if there's a magnet school program in the area, but you might want to look into that--such programs are relatively effective at providing good schools for people living in areas that aren't well-moneyed.
posted by Jeanne at 2:01 PM on July 21, 2005

If your household is not already bilingual a language immersion program can be a good thing to persue if available. Not only because of the second language but also because the parents who go thru the hassle of getting their children into immersion programs are often also actively involved in the school.
posted by Mitheral at 2:25 PM on July 21, 2005

Well, I don't think it's too early to be thinking about this. It underlines that you care about your toddlers' futures, and that's good parenting in my book.
AS for "college strategy", if you move to a remote place in the US, try to take a look around for the extracurricular activities that your kids could do and that would really make them different from urban kids.
Say you move to rural Alaska, every Ivy League will be impressed if the kid participated in, say, mountain rescue missions even if in rural Alaska it's quite a normal thing to do. If you move to the island of Kuai'i, you could involve your kid in surfing championships, for instance. You get my drift..
As for "teaching at home", you don't have to homeschool a kid to teach him more than what his or her school offers. First, by identifying what your kid is interested in (this changes over the ages, and that's good). Driving the kids to museums, camps, etc.. Making sure every trip you take has an educational aspect to it. Even making "special education" trips to Washington DC for instance. Supply him or her with an abondance of reading material and get him/her in contact with other youths interested in the same hobbies. Over summer, look into camps, even in different states or countries.
posted by ruelle at 2:42 PM on July 21, 2005

I don't know about elementary school, but I attended three middle schools--one 'poor,' one 'regular,' and one 'rich.' There's no question that the quality of the education in the 'rich' school was many, many times better than what I received in the other two. This did, in fact, affect me in a lot of ways; and I'm sure that switching to a better school improved my happiness and my college chances.

For example, at the 'poor' school, I remember that I received an award for being the only student in my grade to complete all of my homework assignments. I was depressed and bummed out by my crummy school; I felt like I was the only remotely nerdy (or achievement-oriented) kid; I was bored in class and by my homework. When I switched to the 'rich' school my entire life turned around. I did well in class, but more importantly I had other friends who also did well, so I wasn't the only one. I went from a depressed kid to a happy kid almost immediately. I think the difference between bad and good schools is far more fundamental than, for example, the connections you'll make--it has to do with the way you understand yourself.

In other words, I think the difference can be night and day, and I would think pretty hard about exactly how 'bad' the bad schools are. For what it's worth, when I was a kid living in a not-so-good area, my parents somehow got me transferred to a better school about a 30-minute drive away. All through elementary school I attended a school that was better than the one in my neighborhood. I don't know if such things are possible, but you should look into transfers if you're concerned.
posted by josh at 3:31 PM on July 21, 2005

There's a reason parents research the school system BEFORE they buy a house
posted by Pressed Rat at 4:09 PM on July 21, 2005

High school and college success has less to do with the quality of school, per-se, than it does with the parents' involvement with their children's schooling.

This statement and other factors that affect children's education are in the book Freakonomics.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 4:26 PM on July 21, 2005

If your remote area is near San Diego, watch out. Many outlying areas here were devastated by wildfires two years ago, hundreds of homes destroyed and many lives lost.
posted by ozziemaland at 5:07 PM on July 21, 2005

I moved from a lower-middle class public school to an upper-middle class public school in 9th grade. I had gone to the first school since kindergarten, and boy was I happy to leave. It was very small and seriously lacking in the intellectual and culture departments. (And this was in the suburbs of NYC!) I was made fun of 1. for reading when I didn’t have to (by my “friends”), and 2. for taking dance classes. I was still one of the best students at my new school, but I wasn’t the only one. I wasn’t interested in hanging out with the stupid rich kids or partying (and thus I’m not one of those people who would call HS the “best years of my life”), but I made friends with worthwhile people who respected me and with whom I had fun. And I felt much more comfortable and challenged, academically.

My sister also transferred schools when I did, but she was in 7th grade. She was not looking forward to the transition and found her new classmates snobby and frustrating. She sorta fell in with the stoners, which led to a few incidents, but eventually she ended up finding her niche by 11th grade or so. I’d argue that she left HS close to a larger number of her peers than I did.

I *know* that being in the better school helped us get into top-tier colleges. We had better resources, better teachers, and access to a wider range of advanced and AP courses (and there were still fewer than 150 people in my graduating class). I noticed the difference my first year of college, when my classmates displayed gaps in their knowledge of literature and in their writing skills.

That all said, your kids are plenty young, and we did great just changing schools for high school.
posted by CiaoMela at 5:26 PM on July 21, 2005

I think the ideal situation is to end up at a school where the kids are working class and the school district is rich.

My anecdote: I moved from an inner city school to a suburban school when I was in grade 5. In both cases they were the neighbourhood schools a couple of blocks from my house. The new (suburban) school wasn't nearly as good and I was miserable. When my parents asked recently if I thought they had made any real mistakes as parents, changing my school was the only thing I could come up with.

The inner city school had more...more everything. A choir open to all, houseleagues, junior sports (the suburban school didn't have teams until grade 5), and all sorts of events and stuff (yearly jog-a-thon, playday, carnaval), a nicer schoolyard, French, Italian and Portuguese starting in grade 1, and most importantly really good teachers who were very into their jobs.

The suburban school had none of that stuff, though it did have the "stupid rich kids" (though they weren't really rich, they seemed it to me at the time). They only had French and it wasn't nearly as advanced -- I know this because I have the same material in my Grade 3 (inner city school) and my Grade 8 (suburban school) French notebooks. I was an average student in French at the inner city school, but was treated like some sort of wonder kid by the French teacher at the new school.

As I said, I was miserable. So miserable I made myself ill.

Oh, and my high school was decidedly mediocre, and I wasn't happy there either.

*shrug* I went to the top-rated school for undergrad and now I'm a grad student at an ivy. Oh, and when I do the "comparisons" at classmates.com looking at students at my two elementary schools, it seems that my classmates from the inner city school have higher average education.

Forget rich district/poor district, and "stupid rich kids". Go to the schools, talk to parents, talk to kids, and see what they're like and try to figure out what kind of experience your kids would have there. But before you do that, think hard about what kind of experience you want them to have. I'm sure you want your kids to get a steller education and grown up to fulfill their genius potential, but that's probably not all that you want for them. What else do you want for them and where will they get that? (e.g. I would want my kids to be exposed to plenty of diversity (not just ethnicity, which diversity has somehow become code for, but income, political views, priorities, goals, life experiences etc. etc.). I'm not saying you should want that, but my point is that you do need to make sure you know what non-academic things you value. Your kids will learn a lot more things (and a lot more important things) than academics in school.

You seem to be thinking a lot about your kids college experience already. I have two thoughts on this and I'll throw them out even though you didn't ask. First, how do you know your kids will want to go to college? Second, even if your kids high school affects what college they go to, the college they go to doesn't affect their income. Your kid will make the same amount of money no whether they go to an ivy or your local state school.

Your kids will be fine. Choose their school based on what will give them their best elementary school (and high school) experience. The rest will fall into place when the time comes.
posted by duck at 6:24 PM on July 21, 2005

Pretty much all school systems suck. Unless you are lucky to find a truly, truly exeptional school, the school doesn't matter. REALLY.

It's about your kid, and it's about you.

If your kid's a moron, he'll be a moron wherever he is. Schooling doesn't teach you the things it intends to, and the more it thinks it's a sucess at it's intended mission, the worse it's output is.
posted by blasdelf at 6:43 PM on July 21, 2005

Duck's above comment is really good. Real Diversity is really good. Expose your kids to as much variety as you can.
posted by blasdelf at 6:47 PM on July 21, 2005

To some extent, it will depend on how your area handles school funding. If taxes from rich districts help subsidize poor ones, then the poorer neighborhood is more likely to be a good bet.
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:02 PM on July 21, 2005

I'm not a college admissions person or anything, but I think colleges are starting to look at things a little more broadly. There's so much grade inflation these days that many kids at "rich" schools get good grades...which makes things difficult. If everyone is getting A's, how do you know who stands out? I know my alma mater (UW-Madison) was pretty generous with accepting students from smaller and probably poorer towns in-state. Colleges want diversity. If your kids can excel at a "mediocre" school (and what does that mean, anyway?), they shouldn't be adversely affected. And this won't even be a concern for 12 years, so things could change even more by then.

I firmly believe that education is what you make of it. As a parent, as a student. There are plenty of kids in wonderful schools who don't give a shit and utilize none of the resources offered, likewise, there are also kids in bad schools that make the most of what they've got. Like nearly everyone else has said, check out the schools for yourself and figure out which is a better fit. Remember that your kids are KIDS and they/you might not know yet! And also check out open-enrollment options.
posted by jetskiaccidents at 7:17 PM on July 21, 2005

If you are truly worried about college, etc, your children will have the same, if not better, chance of getting in to a good school from a bad school district than from a good one. The top tier colleges know all about the school districts, and a great candidate from a crappy school district has a much better shot at an Ivy than the same great candidate from an elite high school, simply by virtue of having to overcome more odds to be a great candidate. The less a school offers, the easier it is to get in to a top tier school - it sounds backassward, but it is true.

Great people come from 'mediocre' schools - most people come from mediocre schools, to be honest, and paents who are cognizant about the possible need to enrich their children's education are usually also cognizant of how to go about doing so - extracurriculars are a great place to start, as are fun hobbies, and volunteerism.
posted by sperare at 8:06 PM on July 21, 2005

I do not think it's too soon to think about it. I went to a public grade school in a poor neighbourhood. The years between grades 2 and 7 were an almost complete waste of my time. I wasn't challenged, and I did not have to learn good study habits or discipline. Unless you plan to supplement a shoddy education with lots of extra stuff on the side, it's a false bargain.
posted by zadcat at 8:15 PM on July 21, 2005

I can think of no general statement that is accurate and helpful, beyond the idea you already have, that the schools DO make a difference.

One might consider teacher's ages. Older staff is more likely to be burnt-out. But that's not fair to good older teachers, which occur a lot!

These days, you might do well to consider what kind of trouble kids there get in to. Which is to say, where is the border-line of "trouble"? Some places, its really too high, others, maybe too low (a possibility about which I am uncertain).
posted by Goofyy at 12:52 AM on July 22, 2005

The money doesn't really matter as much as you think, actually. My parents went out of their way to make sure they were in a "good" school district and, as it turned out, all that meant was that they had a very good football team (well, and a lot of other winning sports teams). It's not even that much better in terms of protecting kids -- I was protected by being extremely nerdy, I think, but my school was recently in the news because a football coach was selling heroin to high school students.

I've heard people that have had good teachers at poor schools, too. Poor schools in "remote areas" are also a far cry from inner-city schools, and I actually know a large number people who've had good experiences with schools like that, whereas the people I know from suburban schools are either jackasses or hold incredible bitterness towards their schools for years to come.

Even funding isn't always related to how much money the parents have -- if there's any industry in the area, the schools will get a bunch of tax money from them.


Sure, on average, you'll find higher standardized-test scores and such in suburban schools, but that's just because the kids are pressured by their parents to get into the best schools. Honestly, if you have any idea that your kids will have any shred of intellectual curiosity, there will be nothing worse than to be surrounded by people who are highly motivated to get good grades in any way possible, but who have absolutely no interest in learning or intellectual pursuits.
posted by dagnyscott at 7:20 AM on July 22, 2005

I have a lot of thoughts reading this, but I will limit myself :)

Both of my parents went to private schools, both hated them and swore solomn oaths never to send their children to one. Both my sister and I hated much of our public school experience. My conclusion: growing up is difficult; schools and education, by their very nature, are going to be distastful at times to certain kinds of (probably most) children.

I went to one school that I know had a reputation as a "good" school--the best middle school in my area. It was at this school that the principal refused to have my cousin tested for a learning disability year after year, while her parents stuggled to teach her the basic reading and writing she was unable to get from her class time (eventually she got testing, and with some very basic accomodations was able to become an excellent student). I submit this as evidence that it is the people at the school, not the reputation or the funding, that counts.

The kids I know who have dealt best with the challenges of life, both in public school and in post-secondary school, are the ones who had stability and security at home. The kids who could rely on their parents, who had homes that offered them relief from the social and educational frustrations of school, who had parents that encouraged and supported them in all aspects of their lives, those are the kids who grew up to be successful with ease.
posted by carmen at 12:42 PM on July 22, 2005

I attended an inner city school with a reputation for excellent teachers and classes. Drawing from several different neighborhoods with disparate incomes and ethnic groups, and attracting kids from the suburbs through reputation, this school boasted a very diverse student body. The normal teen angst aside, I had a blast, and was certainly well prepared for college when I graduated. We didn't have the funding or facilities of many of the suburban schools, but the quality of the students and teachers more than made up for it. I didn't find differences in family incomes to be a barrier to making friends; my family is middle class and I hung out with kids both far up and far down the economic ladder. I would be more worried about my kids getting into bad drugs at a suburban school than an inner city one. Sure, there was a lot of pot to be found in the halls of my school, but the kids I knew who got into the bad stuff like heroine and cocaine all attended schools in the more affluent sections of my hometown. You need money for those habits. The most violent and evil people I've yet to meet were a group of bored wealthy kids from one of the subdivisions. Personally, I'd chance the "mediocre" schools in the poorer district, but my high school was somewhat unique. I would be more interested in the quality of teachers than funding, although no school will function well without a balance of both.
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 1:44 PM on July 22, 2005

I'm answering this really late, so no one will probably ever read it.

My mother worked in children's literacy. She said that parental literacy and involvement was just about the biggest predictor of child literacy. I'm in graduate school now.

Duck's advice is the best - it's not the wealth of the school district, it's the teachers and people at the school that matters. I went to a very very bad school for grade 2. Some people might have said it was because it had some very poor children from subsidized housing being bussed there (like my brother and me). But really, it was because the principal was a racist idiot, and the school was bad when it was all middle class (the busing started just that year). A few years later, they had even more children being bused there, including many Somalian refugees learning English. But the new principal was a dedicated and competant woman who did a lot to improve the school. Now it is a good primary school.

Magnet programs, like arts or immersion programs are good, not just because of the better teacers, but also because of the fact that there is something else to be interested in if it isn't school.

That said, sometimes people worry too much. If your child isn't learning to read - worry. If your highschool student is failing - worry. If they aren't that into school and are getting by but not doing brilliantly, don't worry - they may change. I decided in my last year of high school that I wanted to go to university. I got alright marks, got into a decent university, and then did very well doing what I was interested in.

Your children will make their own lives - you will do what you can to help them, but there is a point at which it really is all their reponsibility. Probably that comes about age 12 or so. Because you can't make them do well in school if they won't (through lack of inclination or ability) - just love and support them, and try to help them find what they excell at.

Also, I'd like to point out that duck, despite being truly brilliant (scarily so) and at world renowned university, makes much less than a plumber. Please give her a job, preferably in the southern Ontario area.

(yes, I am stalking you. Now shut up.)
posted by jb at 9:55 PM on August 13, 2005