school choice

It's a great thing to go to a school function and see many of your neighbors there and feel like part of a community. It's a wonderful thing to see your child walking to school with neighbors. Neighborhood schools support communities, and strong communities support neighborhood schools.

School choice, on the other hand, fractures communities. A friend who choiced her kids out of the neighborhood says, "It's like moving out to the country." Probably worse--out in the country, I expect the school is still a center of the community and people know each other.

But even worse than the weakening of communities is the effect of school choice on neighborhood schools. Strong schools may not notice the effect of competition--in fact, they tend to benefit. Weak schools, on the other hand, get weaker. Our previous neighborhood school was such a school. About 80% of kids receive free or reduced-price lunch, and about 50% of students are Hispanic, many of whom are learning English as a second language. About half the school population lives near the school; the other half are bused in from a poorer area of town. The school faculty are very good. The principal is a strong leader who knows everyone and responds quickly to concerns. My children always had good--sometimes excellent-- teachers. But when there's a mandate that no child be left behind and half the students are behind, the students that are ahead might not get much attention.

Soon after the school was built 9 years ago, charter schools started popping up. Families of high-achieving students, weary of all that our Title I school had to offer, soon gravitated toward halls filled with happy children, conservative values, and statues of Ronald Reagan. I don't know the numbers of students who fled, but PTA lost many involved parents. We still had a core of hard-working, good-hearted moms who keep the PTA going. But it's hard to be one of the few, year after year. I didn't last long. I was contemplating driving our oldest to a gifted & talented program in a neighboring town when our district finally, amazingly decided to start a program. And because our district leaders believe in equal access, they even provide busing.

And then we moved, choosing our location in part due to its proximity to "good" schools. We're just north of the junior high that our oldest would attend if he hadn't chosen the new GT magnet at the high school. Our second attends the magnet for 4-6 graders. Our third child walks to the neighborhood school, where I do not plan to send our fourth. Before we got here I contacted the principal to ask what enrichment and acceleration they offered in math, as our second grader had done second grade math as a first grader (thanks to the responsive principal and accommodating teachers at the Title I school); our new principal responded, "None." My husband wants me to get involved instead of opting out, and part of me thinks I should, but most people seem happy with the school. I just arrived, and change takes time. I'm impatient and tired.

I curse George W (for many things) and his colleagues, who turned public schools into test-prep centers and then cried for options like charter schools that are much less fettered by regulations. I laud the parents who strengthen their neighborhood schools, empathize with parents who don't, and am grateful for district leaders who provide options.

We're happy with the schools we've chosen, but there are trade-offs. With our older children, we've given up something of convenience and community; With our third, we've chosen community over intellectual challenge. With choice, trade-offs are a given, I think.

for the record

One point I tried to make in my earlier "having it all" entry is that I don't need my husband to do half the housekeeping--nor do I want him to if it means I'm expected to earn half the household income. Before we married, he proposed we split household duties equally, which was a novel idea that I wasn't about to refuse. At the time it made sense, since we were both working students. We've since become more specialized, more traditional, and that works for us. I don't mind doing laundry, dishes, grocery shopping, cooking dinner--and most days, that's about the extent of my housekeeping. N hates laundry, but doesn't seem to mind yard work and home repair/improvement--and therefore does nearly 100%. Everyone has to figure out what works for them.

t.v.

While paging through a parenting magazine in a doctor's office I read this advice for healthy marriages: Spend at least 5 hours per week alone together (watching t.v. doesn't count). Call me unimaginative, but what on earth would we do for 5 hours alone, every week? And besides, what's wrong with watching t.v. together?

I don't love t.v. As a teenager I imagined raising bilingual children who snacked on veggies and didn't watch t.v. Instead, our children are decidedly monolingual (the two older kids are taking Latin), live on sugar, and drift from screen to screen. I married a man who likes screens. We have 3 large-screen t.v.s, 2000 channels (give or take), Roku, Netfliks, 3 video game systems, personal hand-held devices, multiple computers. When designing this house N stipulated that we needed to be able to see the t.v. easily from the kitchen or he'd never cook again.

But one great thing about t.v. is that once our kids are watching something they agree upon, they don't fight. And more than that, there's something to be said for shared experience--even if it's a t.v. show, video game, or movie. (Frankly I don't understand the rationale some people have that it's o.k. to watch movies and play video games, but not watch t.v.)

There are several shows we've watched as a family: American Idol (a couple seasons--not this one yet); Amazing Race (one season); Friday Night Lights, which is great for introducing topics like sex education; Glee (parental discretion also advised); and most recently, Top Gear (N and I have other shows we watch after the kids go to bed). Maybe not as memorable and worthwhile as sledding or baseball, but t.v. can nonetheless encourage discussion, good feelings, and a sense of community. If I had to choose between reading different books in the same room or watching the same show together, I'd say that a good show shared brings a greater sense of togetherness than the literature unshared.

N recently remarked, "You should watch more t.v. while you fold laundry." To which I replied, "Maybe you should do more laundry while you watch t.v." Then one day when I'd allowed 3 batches to pile up (spread across my bed to minimize wrinkling), I turned on the Daily Show while I folded. And you know what? N was right. Folding wasn't a chore, and I didn't feel guilty about watching t.v. (funny thing--just today at book group a friend said she allows clean laundry to pile up for that reason). But usually I fold laundry one batch at a time with my 2 year old nearby, so I don't watch t.v. And N has not yet tried my suggestion.

back to the books

After months of reading nothing but student papers, I love having time to read books again. The problem is that once I start a good book I don't want to put it down til I reach the end. I am better than I once was at closing my book at a decent hour and saving it for when work is done, but if I have to choose between grading papers and reading my book, I certainly would prefer the latter. So, here's what I read in January:

Beekeeper's Apprentice, by Laurie King. Enjoyable, would be great for book group. Set in UK around WWII. A sharp young lady meets the retired Sherlock Holmes and becomes his apprentice.

One Sunday when E was napping with N, and my Beekeeper's Apprentice was in their napping room, I picked up The Lightning Thief, by Rick Riordan. Our three older kids (and most of my students) have read this book, so I figured I should read it to be culturally literate. It's a fun read and well-done, and although Beekeeper's has a more advanced vocabulary, older characters, and more complex situations and relationships, both books are mysteries and coming-of-age stories.

After the first two, I guess I had caught the reading bug, because then I picked up an epic: The Children's Book, by A. S. Byatt. Almost 900 pages (paperback), spanning several families and about 25 years, filled with historical and cultural references, symbolism, and allegories, this was not a quick read. For the first 100 pages I had a tough time keeping track of all the characters, and somewhere in the middle I wondered if sex was going to be the main theme for the rest of the book. But I liked how Byatt approached many themes--gender, class, war, activism, industrialism, religion, emperialism, sex, marriage, death, art/craft--from multiple perspectives. And I found that the historical & cultural context enriched the story (though I'm not a great student of history and skimmed much), and the story brought the context to life.

I should probably focus on other things (papers, exercise, laundry, my family) for a few days before immersing myself in another book. The next will be short and sweet: A Room with a View (for book group).