
The pressure that U.S. inequality exerts on parents - pzs
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/american-financial-hell/481107/
======
tehabe
I remember Linus Torvalds talking about this, getting a home in a good school
district is difficult and expensive but not getting one has consequences. And
when you read this, you really understand the Finnish idea that all school
should be equally good, a competition between them will lead to good, better,
and bad schools.

~~~
rayiner
There is no such thing as a "good school district." In D.C. there is a
neighborhood called Capitol Hill. The local elementary school is Brent. 5-10
years ago, rich people would never have sent their kids to that school. It was
80% low-income, and the test scores were terrible. The area has dramatically
gentrified over the last several years, and now it's one of the best schools
in the city (and less than 15% low-income). Nothing changed about the school
or the teachers--what changed is how much money the students parents' have.

The problem in the U.S. isn't that we have "good schools" and "bad schools."
It's that we have extreme segregation along racial and economic lines. Our
policies create pockets of schools that are 90% low-income (and usually a
similar percentage black or hispanic). It's a symptom of a society with
extreme segregation and wealth inequality, not a cause.

~~~
Throwaway23412
I agree with the spirit of your comment, but you seem to be contradicting
yourself. How can nothing have changed about the school? Schools derive a
great deal of their funding from property taxes. You just described a school
district dramatically gentrifying and going from 80% low-income to less than
15% low-income. The school now has a dramatically larger budget. They could
have completely upgraded the teaching staff. They can now afford better
facilities and resources. Even if the teachers are the exact same, they are
now literally teaching a completely different student body. That sounds like a
school that's changed to me.

~~~
jdminhbg
> How can nothing have changed about the school? Schools derive a great deal
> of their funding from property taxes. You just described a school district
> dramatically gentrifying and going from 80% low-income to less than 15% low-
> income. The school now has a dramatically larger budget.

This is incorrect. All of the public schools in DC are in one school district,
so the changing demographics of neighborhoods don't affect how much money is
available for any given school in that district. The property taxes are all
going into one pot.

~~~
simulate
Property taxes might be the same but money available for the school can change
dramatically when kids of rich parents attend because of PTA fund raising.

In California schools are poorly funded but some public schools manage to
raise thousands of dollars per student through the PTA.
[http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2014-02/how-budget-cuts-and-
PT...](http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2014-02/how-budget-cuts-and-PTA-
fundraising-undermined-equity-in-san-francisco-public-schools)

~~~
rayiner
For reference: the $1,500 per student raised by the highest fundraising school
is 1/10 as much as the approximately $15,000 per student _more_ DCPS spends
than FCPS (a neighboring suburb and second richest county in the country).

------
bradleyjg
If we decoupled housing from education as much as possible then at least
people wouldn't be forced to buy all sorts of other amenities that they might
or might not want along with the educations they do want.

There'd be a lot of winners from such a change, but the big losers would be
incumbent homeowners in neighborhoods with "good schools" that have had that
circumstance capitalized into the prices of their homes. Unfortunately that's
quite a powerful group of people.

~~~
burfog
The big losers would be the bright and willing children.

It's hard enough being a nerdy kid today. Such kids almost always are in
decent places because kids tend to be like their parents. Kids with the
potential to succeed come from parents with the potential to succeed.

Education doesn't work if the classroom is full of kids who can't behave.
Education doesn't get very advanced if the classroom is full of kids who
aren't bright and willing to study.

Mix things up, and what do you get? A few strangely poor-yet-viable kids will
move from very bad schools to slightly bad schools (nice but insignificant)
while all the bright promising kids will end up in less-effective schools. The
best schools will cease to exist. (by changing that is; they don't physically
go away)

It does make us more equal, largely by inhibiting the success of our brightest
and hardest-working students. Is this what you want?

~~~
alphonsegaston
Aside from your circular reasoning (kids that are sucessful are successful),
you could transpose this argument back half a century and have faulty
rationale that many whites used to justify segregation of academic
institutions at all levels. The success of Jewish students from "less
successful" backgrounds once anti-Semitism was largely dismantled demonstrates
how this was absurd on its face.

~~~
gaius
It's not circular at all, it is simply a fact that the education system works
that way. Why is Harvard prestigious? Because it has a policy of only
admitting people who would be successful whether they went to Harvard or
not... And "Harvard dropout" carries as much cachet at "Harvard graduate",
which should tell you something.

~~~
alphonsegaston
It don't believe that's how it works. Here's another question to demonstrate
this: How did the University of Michigan become a prestigious public
university? In part, by accepting all the bright Jewish students that Harvard
blocked from admission because of racial quotas. The subsequent success and
honors of their alumni built up their reputation and donor base to what it is
today. So aside from this argument being unfalsifiable and circular itself
(those who went to Harvard would've been successful if they didn't go to
Harvard, but they went to Harvard...), we would have to accept that all the
Jewish students rejected from Harvard we're just never going to be successful
anyway, which the historical example invalidates.

~~~
gaius
... In other words they were successful despite not going to Harvard!

I didn't say it was a good system; just observed that it is how it is.

------
cushychicken
> he has two very well-educated and successful daughters. They are, in a
> sense, his retirement plan: Barring extenuating circumstances, they will be
> in a position to care for him and his wife in their later years. We should
> all be so lucky.

I'm not quite sure how saddling my children with the cost of my care and
feeding in my twilight years is a better choice than letting them go to public
school and state universities. Seems like that's just passing the buck on who
has to pay that particular bill.

~~~
refurb
I have to agree. I understand wanting to give your children all the benifits
you can, but it doesn't make much sense to do it at the expense of your own
financial stability.

~~~
jschwartzi
Speaking as someone whose parents prioritized their financial security and
their hobbies, and having the experiences I have now, I can tell you that it's
not a decision I would make lightly. It mattered a great deal which public
schools I went to because it mattered a great deal which college I got in to.
I went to a middling public school, so I ended up in a middling college. The
only reason I've ended up where I am is that I'm very lucky. I could easily
have ended up working retail like nearly all of my friends from high school.
Knowing that actually makes me afraid to have children, because it's really
likely that they'll be worse off than I am.

------
dominotw
>here are ways in which this is apropos—men, in particular, have seen their
earning power diminish in recent decades, and Gabler isn’t the first to draw a
connection between financial power and sexual power. But this is an
unfortunately narrow framing of a financial crisis whose casualties are so
often women.

I am having hard time parsing this seemingly self contradicting sentence even
after reading the linked article.

can someone explain this to me.

~~~
Tycho
I think it's just saying 'financial impotence' is not gender-neutral enough as
a term. But I agree it didn't make much sense the way it was phrased.

------
naveen99
One thing I don't like about us public k-12 schools is there stringent
attendance policies. I wish there funding wasn't tied to holding our kids
hostage during the school day. One of the reasons my children go to private
school.

~~~
otoburb
My experiences with private schools is that they have just as, if not more,
stringent attendance policies. The consequence of non-attendance always seems
to lead to expulsion.

~~~
naveen99
Private schools will allow advanced arrangements, like making up work, or
homework in Leiu of attendance. Public schools are not interested in
expulsion, they threaten calling child protective services. Not my district
but see example attendance policy
[http://www.escobedoms.com/pdf/Parent_Attendance_Guide.pdf](http://www.escobedoms.com/pdf/Parent_Attendance_Guide.pdf)
from a quick google search.

Public schools literally consider too many absences a crime ("truancy"),
partly because their funding is directly tied to number of days students are
in class. Private schools will charge you the same tuition regardless of how
much vacation you take just like college.

------
jgalt212
You know why the children of the upper middle class try so hard?

Because their parents almost made it.

------
known
Everyday experiences of discrimination (such as being treated with less
respect or receiving poorer service) are common and affect black people in the
US more frequently than white people. [http://qz.com/334366/why-black-
americans-cant-sleep-at-night...](http://qz.com/334366/why-black-americans-
cant-sleep-at-night-racism/)

------
raarts
Combine this with the other HN submission on that it 's not so much where you
study but what, it's a bad call for parents to try to get their kids on an
expensive school. They would be better off getting their kids to choose a STEM
major even at a cheaper school.

~~~
Throwaway23412
That submission is about colleges. This submission is about high schools. The
differences in quality between high schools is drastically more varied than
differences in quality between colleges.

------
kough
Broken link, the correct link is here:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/american...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/american-
financial-hell/481107/)

~~~
dang
Thanks, we've fixed that above. We also changed the title from "American
parents spend almost beyond their means on education", which appears to have
been editorializing, to the subtitle of the article (the main title being too
baity).

------
iamjdg
ha, this article is basically preaching the ways of mr money mustache, but in
a high brow way.

------
Pyxl101
> almost beyond their means

So, within their means?

~~~
tehabe
If you live from paycheck to paycheck, you live within your means but if
anything happens, everything will fell apart. How this looks on a national
scale was visible in the subprime mortage crisis a couple of years ago.

------
Tycho
Spending on education/tuition is how middle-class Americans ensure the lower
class ones stay down there. If spending on schooling was capped the way most
things are capped then there would be much more competition for 'white-collar'
jobs.

eg. middle class families may spend a little more on food on average but they
are not going to spend 'beyond their means' on lavish cuisine in the hope that
it will ensure a health advantage, because it obviously won't. The same is
largely true of the quality of education available - there's no reason why the
outcome (actual learning) should get much better by spending excessively on
it. But then you have to factor in the signalling and filtering aspects.

~~~
chaostheory
The middle class is not spending money on education to keep others 'down'.
They're doing it to keep from getting trampled themselves.

EDIT: I'm also going to disagree with you on this as well: "spend 'beyond
their means' on lavish cuisine in the hope that it will ensure a health
advantage, because it obviously won't"

Regardless as to whether or not organic and non-GMO food actually has better
health benefits, people do not shop at Whole Foods just so they can show off
the green bag to everyone else. Unlike say fashion, automobiles, or even
gadgets, groceries are not ideal for 'signaling'

Believe it or not, most people don't have the luxury (or even the inclination)
of sitting in a nice chair with their mean looking cat dreaming up ways of
hurting others. Most people are just trying to get by... though obviously this
greatly varies from person to person.

~~~
Tycho
Trampled by what? A stampede of equally qualified candidates? That's exactly
my point.

Also I'm not sure my point about food was clear. I'm saying give a poor family
an extra $5k to spend for healthier food, and it could make a significant
difference. But give them $50k (for food) more and it has no additional health
benefit. But give them $50k, $250k, $500k to spend on schooling and suddenly
it leads to great differences in outcome.

~~~
pkaye
I mentioned this earlier but in my city, the school district consists of 5
high schools which all get common funding yet there is a huge difference
between performance. The top school is in 99% ranking in the state and the
other schools are in middle tier. Though there is equal funding, it didn't
make much of a difference. I have see all the schools are they look equally
shabby having been build 50 years ago.

The main thing that happened is nearly 15 years back (I think) standardized
testing was passed so all schools were ranked. Then parents started sending
their kids to the best schools they could afford. This started to give a
divergence where the best schools started be become better. It also created
demand for housing in the best school areas and the housing prices went up. In
our city, the houses near the best schools are 2x the price. Quality wise
everything else is the same. Now you have highly educated parents who are paid
well how try to send their kids to the best school possible.

So I don't think funding is the entire answer. We need safe schools. Parents
need to be motivated for their kids to succeed. And kids will learn better in
an environment where peers also value their education. But throwing money at
the problem in the the entire answer. I believe there is a Freakanomics
article about this issue and what they believed mattered the most for kids to
succeed is that the parents cared enough about their kids education.

~~~
Tycho
I agree with you. There's no inherent reason why education should be getting
more and more expensive. With all the technology we have and the large pool of
highly educated potential teachers[1] it should actually be getting cheaper or
better value for money.

But the explanation I'm giving is that the middle class like to use education
as a filter that keeps the poor away from the nice white collar jobs. So they
are highly insensitive to price. Meanwhile, all the broken things about
education (in terms of actual teaching/learning) go unfixed.

[1] although there is an interesting argument that women who were previously
forced to settle on teaching for a career are now going into industry instead
(since industry became less sexist) , leading to a drop in teaching quality
(especially for things like maths)

