Really appreciate this. My mental rejoinder to people who say “I heard this isn’t a good school” or “I hear the schools are good in (usually Park Slope)” is “Define good.” Everyone prioritizes different things for themselves and their kids but to me, perhaps the most important thing I can give my daughter (whose is white, stably housed and the child of two parents with college and post-graduate degrees, which are the greatest predictors of her future educational outcomes) is an environment where not everyone is like her, and she experiences that as normal.
Oof, I'm so glad you wrote about this, especially because of the individualities and tensions you've described in the post and comments. The choice about where to send your kid to school is personal, and feels personal... which I think makes it seem like that choice has nothing to do with broader societal norms and trends.
My son goes to our neighborhood public elementary school, which would probably fall under the category of "good enough". I like the school, his teachers, the district, our neighborhood, etc. In our area, there is a distinct trend of suburban flight once middle- to upper-class households have kids, or when there kids are old enough for kindergarten and a final flight for many parents once the kids reach middle school. You can trace a line from their urban neighborhood out to the suburbs. So it isn't JUST an individual decision, but part of a larger trend and hollowing out of our city.
I appreciate that you aren't prescriptive here - though I want to be! I want to just shout, please don't move! Please don't switch school districts! But there are lots of reasons for folks to do that, so I appreciate your gentle reminder that... maybe they don't have to.
People are always surprised that our son goes to public school in our city. There's a massive racial dynamic and set of assumptions here too that can't be ignored, and the conversations can get really tricky. Thanks for hosting this one.
This article is talking about two separate concepts as if they are the same.
First there's the distinction between "good enough" schools and "the best" schools. On this point I agree with the article. The diminishing returns of the stress and difficulties of affording a town like Lexington (the best suburban school in the Boston area) are not worth the difference in education qualify compared to the surrounding towns which are often much more affordable with only slightly worse schools.
Second there's the point about "moving to the suburbs for the schools." The article equates such a move with sending ones kids to the absolute best schools (like Lexington) ... but that's obviously not the reality of things? The vast majority of people moving from the city proper to the suburbs are going to middle class suburbs with decent but not exceptional schools ... i.e., "good enough" schools.
Frankly the sort of "good enough neighbourhood schools" that you describe - where you can send your kids and know that they're learning the things they should be learning, are safe, and are overseen by teachers who care with an administration that enables that care - are only attainable in the suburbs in most american cities.
To actually make the points you're trying to make, I think you should frame this as a discussion of what a "good enough" suburban school looks like, and then present an actual argument that those same features are currently available in city neighbourhood schools.
This rhetorical strategy of equating trying to get your kids in the absolute best schools, to moving so that your kids can go to a good enough school, doesn't actually do anything to convince parents that they should stay in the city.
Both your and Michael Llweyn's comment are similar. My piece is not really about choosing Lexington vs. Boston. It's about people not realizing that they could raise their kid in Boston if they knew it had good enough schools. I don't think a lot of people realize that. And I think most people think they have to move to a suburb to find a good enough school.
You may be overlooking that when parents think of "city public schools" what they actually take issue with is their relatively wealthy, white child being a minority, either by race or by class. That's something many parents don't say, but are thinking.
1. It implies a dichotomy between excellent suburban schools (e.g. Bryn Mawr) and "good enough" urban schools, as if those are the only choices. But I suspect that most suburban schools aren't as good as Bryn Mawr but have better reputations than most urban schools. So for most parents the OK-but-not-perfect option might be in a suburb.
2. I don't think that most suburban parents think that urban schools are "good enough." Instead, the mental map of most parents is, I suspect, something like: 1) Great schools- elite suburbs, 2) Good enough schools- most other suburbs 3) Bad schools- urban schools generally, as well as some suburbs that are too poor to be in category 2. To put it another way, the typical "good enough" school (from the standpoint of suburban parents) is in a middle-middle-class drive-to-qualify suburb, not an urban core.
These are good points! I would say though that many people are urban young adults before they are suburban parents. And they make all the assumptions you laid out, never even considering that a good enough school could be in a city. They assume all city schools are bad, and the good enough options only exist in the suburbs.
I really appreciate the conversation you’re trying to have here! We’re not free until we’re all free, and that starts with education. Of course, there are a million individual reasons why a school might not be a “good fit”. I wish more families would at least try the “good enough” school before deciding to move - like this piece articulates.
I wonder if this conversation is partially difficult to have because people's individual schools are just that: super individualized. I'm of many minds on this topic.
Our public school system (Grand Rapids Public Schools) has a lot of committed families...and it still hasn't moved the needle. In fact, it's gotten quite a bit worse. I was one of the families that was very on board with the "good enough" logic. Until, the good enough also DID mean dealing with regular violence, unfortunately. Violence, of course, can happen anywhere. But to suggest that if everyone commits really ignores the lack of accountability that school boards and school administration play (at least in our city).
I'd be very cool with a mediocre academic education for our children. What I'm uncool with is the blighted buildings, playgrounds, under communication regarding violence (guns being brought to school), secretive meetings, centralized power. This things don't seem to plague our suburban schools. Can you help us understand some of the nuance that goes beyond "just keep your kid there" ?
All good points! Yeah, I hear that. And I was trying to say at the end of the piece that I don't think this works for everyone all the time. Maybe the school wasn't actually "good enough." I don't think there's any point in just keeping your kid somewhere that's not working for you -- "just keep your kid there" is not my suggestion. My suggestion is to try it. Maybe you tried it and it didn't work.
PS I really appreciate your column and am very pro-housing in my own backyard and am a serious advocate for protected cycling infrastructure. School is just the one nut I can't seem to crack.
Oh, so nice to hear! Yeah I was a bit scared to send this post out to be honest -- and am still not sure how it will land. But I appreciate the encouragement. And yeah, if solving the public school situation were easy, well, our cities would be completely different...
Just teach my kids how to read. But then CMSD like abandoned its mission for an entire year plus and I was like yeah this is sorta a deal breaker for me. Paying $700 a month to send him to daycare three days a week to learn on zoom post vaccines was just absurd failed state nonsense. Not even trying to provide an adequate service
I know, I know. Massive public school fail in the pandemic. I was hoping the point was taken that this is not a solution for everyone, but it could be for more people. I wanted to get something larger out there because we have gone back and forth a bit about this topic on Substack, and again, my point is just like: not for everyone, could be for more people.
The other thing is, it really depends on the kid. If your kid has a disability for eg, it’s a lot more complicated. People have different philosophies about this but we need more energy going into improving urban schools than we’ve got rn imo
This is something I've been thinking about a lot, especially since my husband and I moved to Jersey City, and then Harlem, where we're happily raising our toddler. We're surrounded by parents and peers and family members who have left the city "for schools," plan to leave, or have nothing but critical things to say about our school zone (which is, of course, majority Black). We have friends already paying a premium for private daycare or private school. We just don't have that option, for one thing, but also we chose where we live because we want to live there, and also we can afford it. I'm excited for my son to grow up in his community and neighborhood instead of being shuttled to a "good" school in another neighborhood, or to uproot him to a more expensive area for no reason. It's caused some tension in conversations with friends and neighbors, and I'm grateful to see it isn't just me.
Really appreciate this. My mental rejoinder to people who say “I heard this isn’t a good school” or “I hear the schools are good in (usually Park Slope)” is “Define good.” Everyone prioritizes different things for themselves and their kids but to me, perhaps the most important thing I can give my daughter (whose is white, stably housed and the child of two parents with college and post-graduate degrees, which are the greatest predictors of her future educational outcomes) is an environment where not everyone is like her, and she experiences that as normal.
Oof, I'm so glad you wrote about this, especially because of the individualities and tensions you've described in the post and comments. The choice about where to send your kid to school is personal, and feels personal... which I think makes it seem like that choice has nothing to do with broader societal norms and trends.
My son goes to our neighborhood public elementary school, which would probably fall under the category of "good enough". I like the school, his teachers, the district, our neighborhood, etc. In our area, there is a distinct trend of suburban flight once middle- to upper-class households have kids, or when there kids are old enough for kindergarten and a final flight for many parents once the kids reach middle school. You can trace a line from their urban neighborhood out to the suburbs. So it isn't JUST an individual decision, but part of a larger trend and hollowing out of our city.
I appreciate that you aren't prescriptive here - though I want to be! I want to just shout, please don't move! Please don't switch school districts! But there are lots of reasons for folks to do that, so I appreciate your gentle reminder that... maybe they don't have to.
People are always surprised that our son goes to public school in our city. There's a massive racial dynamic and set of assumptions here too that can't be ignored, and the conversations can get really tricky. Thanks for hosting this one.
This article is talking about two separate concepts as if they are the same.
First there's the distinction between "good enough" schools and "the best" schools. On this point I agree with the article. The diminishing returns of the stress and difficulties of affording a town like Lexington (the best suburban school in the Boston area) are not worth the difference in education qualify compared to the surrounding towns which are often much more affordable with only slightly worse schools.
Second there's the point about "moving to the suburbs for the schools." The article equates such a move with sending ones kids to the absolute best schools (like Lexington) ... but that's obviously not the reality of things? The vast majority of people moving from the city proper to the suburbs are going to middle class suburbs with decent but not exceptional schools ... i.e., "good enough" schools.
Frankly the sort of "good enough neighbourhood schools" that you describe - where you can send your kids and know that they're learning the things they should be learning, are safe, and are overseen by teachers who care with an administration that enables that care - are only attainable in the suburbs in most american cities.
To actually make the points you're trying to make, I think you should frame this as a discussion of what a "good enough" suburban school looks like, and then present an actual argument that those same features are currently available in city neighbourhood schools.
This rhetorical strategy of equating trying to get your kids in the absolute best schools, to moving so that your kids can go to a good enough school, doesn't actually do anything to convince parents that they should stay in the city.
Both your and Michael Llweyn's comment are similar. My piece is not really about choosing Lexington vs. Boston. It's about people not realizing that they could raise their kid in Boston if they knew it had good enough schools. I don't think a lot of people realize that. And I think most people think they have to move to a suburb to find a good enough school.
You may be overlooking that when parents think of "city public schools" what they actually take issue with is their relatively wealthy, white child being a minority, either by race or by class. That's something many parents don't say, but are thinking.
I think you paint urban American schools with a very broad brush that basically enforces the points that the author was trying to make.
There are two things that bothered me about this:
1. It implies a dichotomy between excellent suburban schools (e.g. Bryn Mawr) and "good enough" urban schools, as if those are the only choices. But I suspect that most suburban schools aren't as good as Bryn Mawr but have better reputations than most urban schools. So for most parents the OK-but-not-perfect option might be in a suburb.
2. I don't think that most suburban parents think that urban schools are "good enough." Instead, the mental map of most parents is, I suspect, something like: 1) Great schools- elite suburbs, 2) Good enough schools- most other suburbs 3) Bad schools- urban schools generally, as well as some suburbs that are too poor to be in category 2. To put it another way, the typical "good enough" school (from the standpoint of suburban parents) is in a middle-middle-class drive-to-qualify suburb, not an urban core.
These are good points! I would say though that many people are urban young adults before they are suburban parents. And they make all the assumptions you laid out, never even considering that a good enough school could be in a city. They assume all city schools are bad, and the good enough options only exist in the suburbs.
I really appreciate the conversation you’re trying to have here! We’re not free until we’re all free, and that starts with education. Of course, there are a million individual reasons why a school might not be a “good fit”. I wish more families would at least try the “good enough” school before deciding to move - like this piece articulates.
I wonder if this conversation is partially difficult to have because people's individual schools are just that: super individualized. I'm of many minds on this topic.
Our public school system (Grand Rapids Public Schools) has a lot of committed families...and it still hasn't moved the needle. In fact, it's gotten quite a bit worse. I was one of the families that was very on board with the "good enough" logic. Until, the good enough also DID mean dealing with regular violence, unfortunately. Violence, of course, can happen anywhere. But to suggest that if everyone commits really ignores the lack of accountability that school boards and school administration play (at least in our city).
I'd be very cool with a mediocre academic education for our children. What I'm uncool with is the blighted buildings, playgrounds, under communication regarding violence (guns being brought to school), secretive meetings, centralized power. This things don't seem to plague our suburban schools. Can you help us understand some of the nuance that goes beyond "just keep your kid there" ?
All good points! Yeah, I hear that. And I was trying to say at the end of the piece that I don't think this works for everyone all the time. Maybe the school wasn't actually "good enough." I don't think there's any point in just keeping your kid somewhere that's not working for you -- "just keep your kid there" is not my suggestion. My suggestion is to try it. Maybe you tried it and it didn't work.
That's fair. I appreciate the encouragement to try it before you write it off. That I can get on board with and definitely agree.
PS I really appreciate your column and am very pro-housing in my own backyard and am a serious advocate for protected cycling infrastructure. School is just the one nut I can't seem to crack.
Oh, so nice to hear! Yeah I was a bit scared to send this post out to be honest -- and am still not sure how it will land. But I appreciate the encouragement. And yeah, if solving the public school situation were easy, well, our cities would be completely different...
Just teach my kids how to read. But then CMSD like abandoned its mission for an entire year plus and I was like yeah this is sorta a deal breaker for me. Paying $700 a month to send him to daycare three days a week to learn on zoom post vaccines was just absurd failed state nonsense. Not even trying to provide an adequate service
I know, I know. Massive public school fail in the pandemic. I was hoping the point was taken that this is not a solution for everyone, but it could be for more people. I wanted to get something larger out there because we have gone back and forth a bit about this topic on Substack, and again, my point is just like: not for everyone, could be for more people.
The other thing is, it really depends on the kid. If your kid has a disability for eg, it’s a lot more complicated. People have different philosophies about this but we need more energy going into improving urban schools than we’ve got rn imo
This is something I've been thinking about a lot, especially since my husband and I moved to Jersey City, and then Harlem, where we're happily raising our toddler. We're surrounded by parents and peers and family members who have left the city "for schools," plan to leave, or have nothing but critical things to say about our school zone (which is, of course, majority Black). We have friends already paying a premium for private daycare or private school. We just don't have that option, for one thing, but also we chose where we live because we want to live there, and also we can afford it. I'm excited for my son to grow up in his community and neighborhood instead of being shuttled to a "good" school in another neighborhood, or to uproot him to a more expensive area for no reason. It's caused some tension in conversations with friends and neighbors, and I'm grateful to see it isn't just me.