

A New Study Reveals Much About How Parents Really Choose Schools - tokenadult
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/01/15/376966406/a-new-study-reveals-much-about-how-parents-really-choose-schools

======
ThomPete
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
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
> 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
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.

