A mutual reached out to me for guidance on choosing his young children's school for next year. In talking to him, I realized that there are probably a number of people who would like an insider's guide to the topics to look into and questions to ask to support the long-term happiness of your child and your family as a whole. Here it is. <3
I've typed out a few shockers myself, recently; and yours warmed my heart with reassurant hope that I've not necessarily lost my brains. If you, who are clearly vibrant and free, can have a slip of the "vary," then maybe I'm still ok, too.
Great post. Thank you for laying things out so clearly. One additional point: schools accredited by NAIS and/or their state independent school association are under real pressure to align with the priorities of those organizations, whether that’s DEI, sustainability, or other educational trends. To maintain accreditation and reputation, many adopt the expected language in their mission statements and policies. But in practice, some take a more measured approach, quietly adapting to their own community’s values. That’s why it’s so important to visit, talk to families, and see classrooms in action. What’s on paper doesn’t always reflect what’s happening on the ground.
I just reread this post on my phone and saw the embarrassing number of typos in this post. I'll add in your comment about NAIS; maybe even a whole section on accreditation, because organizations like WASC and Cognia hoop public schools too.
Ugh, I LOVE my kid's current school but they are excitedly completing the accreditation process as we speak. I'm nervous about what effects this will have on their school.
My two girls have soft lives in a beautiful environment with solid friend groups, pencil and paper schools, and a regional culture that frowns upon screenlife. However. . . they're 13 and 11 and don't really know their multiplication tables.
We live in France; they are French. Homeschooling is illegal, here. I've passed some years' worth of 3ams wondering whether to move us all to the US. I wonder what catastrophic mistake it could now be, to uproot happy children even for the sake of their education. How on earth could I even judge whether a school would provide the educational and social environment necessary to justify the move?
Your guide has truly helped me to plan investigations, and I'm so grateful that you've put it together. Really, thank you.
PS I've read many of your articles before--all of them, all of them outstanding, inspiring, helpful. My regard for you runs a great depth of gratitude and admiration. Thank you again, thank you.
Thank you for your kind suggestions. You are right that such things make a difference, and we do them. I'm active and ameliorate the gaps as I find them, but when such basic matters are so tattered, one can only imagine the real condition of these boats springing leaks all over.
Lately, I give math, grammar, and writing lessons that are below their grade levels but that clean sweep the dark corners of uncertainty that've settled in over the years since covid kept them at home (and practiced & accomplished). Thanks for the good luck. I'll try putting that to good use!
Yay my scepticism and visceral dislike of project based learning is finally validated. It have never worked for me at any level of education including law school
Man! With all that you described as part of the groundwork needed to ensure the out of the home school is good, I feel like I took the easy way out by homeschooling!!! >_<
I teach in an IB school, and can totally recommend it for grades 11 and 12. It’s pretty full on and it’s all a big exam at the end which is just hard to dilute. The middle years program can suffer from a lack of coherent curriculum as textbooks are not used.
I agree, it is strong. I think the rise of AI could make some Extended Essay assignments and TOK (Theory of Knowledge) essays more problematic so it could be interesting to see what changes might happen in this area. In the end, a program that has an externally marked assessment which carries nearly all the grade weight will be more able to withstand some of the challenges you frequently discuss.
Because of how solid the curriculum is, I agree. There definitely is room in the curriculum for teachers to interject their personal beliefs, and in certain classes, the IB curriculum leans left. Parents just need to be aware of that if it's not aligned with their worldview, but the rigor of the program alone is valuable in terms or producing hard-working, thoughtful, disciplined kids.
Genuine question: you seem to be implying that personal beliefs would bias an otherwise neutral (or standardized) curricula, but doesn't that beg the question that the curricula itself is already neutral?
I went to an IB K-12 school abroad, and I recall one class (in about the 8th grade) our humanities teacher had given us a 10-15 minute talk detailing why the curriculum prevented him from teaching us the Holocaust and the history of anti-Semitism more broadly during our WW2 unit. He was obviously quite unhappy with this, but it was school policy. The reason, which he kind of danced around, was because discussing the Holocaust would inevitably lead to a discussion on the formation of Israel and, because of where we were located, that was/is a very contentious topic—to the point where anything even historically adjacent was cordoned off. I think having a more robust Holocaust history would have prevented a lot of further radicalization I experienced as a young teen (outside of school, fwiw), and it wasn't until I received that education in North America during my later high school years that my process of deradicalization began. A lot of it in part due to teachers who, well, had a decent amount of leeway with their courses (specifically thinking of a great class I took on the history of Western chauvinism and imperialism).
I've been in North America for quite some time now (late high school, uni, and grad school), but the issue of political bias in education seems to grow increasingly prevalent, be it from the systemic or personal end of things. Arguably, it's always been here and has only grown to be more visible due to the surrounding political climate. Ideally, one would be able to find a school where its values align in its charter, curricula, and pedagogy. But if the curricula itself skews a certain direction, is it necessarily a bad thing if a teacher attempts to balance it out? It *can* be (and oftentimes is), of course, but I get the impression from your post/comments (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you seem to be skeptical of it in general, and I'd like to understand your perspective on it more as both an educator and a parent.
I'd say that curriculum could be neutral, but very rarely is. Also, I'd argue that it shouldn't be in a republican system. The reason that becomes tricky is because the state DOEs collectivize education by controlling the regulations governing it for every kid in every community.
The nature of public schooling in America is meant to be small-r republican. We have local schools and a school board is elected to oversee/control them. Effectively though, we have a much more autocratic system because the funding (even local property taxes) are distributed back to the Districts through the state treasury, and the state writes the regulations. Regulations for entire states incentivize the (oligopolistic) textbook publishers to produce curriculum that meet those regulations -- and those regulations are increasingly ideological in left-leaning states, just as they used to be in right-leaning states. But textbook publishers market to the ENTIRE country, so that the ideology in the biggest markets, Illinois, California, and New York, are what drive textbook production.
The state manufactures so many regulations around education it effectively neuters the wishes of the local community. Twice in recent years, conservative boards representing the will of their constituents in California were effectively blocked from rejecting state-approved textbooks/curriculum for their children's schools that was antithetical to the dominant beliefs of the community. It ended up costing the school districts millions and they ended up paying for curriculum they didn't want with scarce categorical funds.
Teacher tenure (as it is currently iterated) compounds the problem of local control. Even if a community could get the curriculum they wanted, a teacher could subvert it by telling students the curriculum is wrong and their parents are immoral for supporting it, and those teachers have coercive power in the form of grades, that allows for consent to be engineered over time. This is especially effective now since in many households both parents work, especially in HCOL areas.
Taxpayer-funding directed by the state to public schools dictates curriculum. Why? Because the state -- removed as it is from any one locality -- sees public schooling not as primarily for the benefit of kids, but rather as a collective benefit for society. Governments refer to school as a "public good" even though it fails that economic test; the vast majority of parents would absolutely pay for education themselves in the absence of an entitlement to it. As a public good, though, the state and federal governments rationalize regulations that incentivize what is best for the health of the state, claiming it is also what is best for children.
As a teacher, I think our professional duty at the lower levels is to stick very tightly to curriculum that covers the basics of literacy and numeracy and observable science and add to that the age-appropriate stories and music and art that form the backbone of culture in our community, state, and country. In the higher grades, as in IB classes, our duty is to objectively present differing viewpoints around any contentious issues that could reasonably expected to be covered as part of the class content.
A survey of 20th Century European history course would have to cover the rise of Bolshevism and Nazism, including the Holocaust as well as the breakup of communism and the fallout of that -- including events that have led to modern-day fascism. The teacher would have to develop the ability to do so without promulgating positions as clearly right or wrong -- which makes parents really, really unhappy, especially if their worldview is the majority worldview in the community.
And here's where the rubber meets the road. I know my students couldn't expect that kind of neutrality at the schools where I had worked. I knew that my own children would be primarily not taught very much or very well and from my colleagues in the humanities in the middle and high schools, they had full cover to be as ideological as they wanted -- as long as their ideology aligned with the school administration and the loudest parents in the community (and on the PTO).
In the case you outlined, I would hope that the principal would have the fortitude to allow such a teacher the opportunity to outline lectures on the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel. Then the principal would review any such topic carefully for bias, and the kids would be instructed, possibly with a principal (or VP) in the room for maximal accountability.
If I was in a community that handled contentious issues that way, I would respect the approach -- knowing it facilitates family conversations that give me the opportunity to field any questions my child had on the topics as well as share more nuanced or belief-driven views I held on the topic.
As a professional, I would EXPECT that approach to be de rigeur, and it would help me in my work knowing my principal had my back as long as I stayed within the ethical standard of the presentation of verifiable fact when it comes to controversial topics. THAT is exactly why tenure was established, not just to guarantee a lifetime salary and allow administrators to dodge accountability for the content and quality of instruction in the classrooms they are tasked with supervising.
This is such a big question, and there are very, very big incentives at play at Federal, local, and university levels (they control the teacher's colleges and certification of individual teachers) so it's a tangled know to untangle. If I haven't done your question justice, please let me know.
„Students who attend these schools and the parents who send their kids to them seem to love them.”
Oof. I’m graduate of one. I received really great education and it allowed me to have typical humanities profile and advanced math, but it had downsides like spending 8h in school everyday, because my individualised curriculum meant classes spread throughout day in ???? pattern. Most of my class/year (42 people in total) indeed loved the school (not me tho), but they used democratic ethos to feel good about themselves and do below minimum of traditional school, opting out of advanced classes. 10 year after graduation I can attest that my cohort has almost none success stories and I know of only 3 people, including myself, who have white collar careers or anything looking like good career for that matter.
Short-term enjoyment doesn't always equal long-term success. Feelings of confidence from gaining competence is much better than enjoyment usually, and in a school setting almost always.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience. I appreciate it.
(We’re talking about kids of upper/upper medium class, some fabulously rich, who were expected to get amazing education and repeat successes of the parents. It mostly didn’t happen.)
I have wondered what is your opinion about the Montessori method: in a way it is classical education (e.g. didn’t deviate from phonics instruction or writing in cursive), but the ‘follow the child’ mantra can be counterproductive. And for better or worse , it has a lefty bias, highly exacerbated these days.
That’s the problem with education. Every kid is so different and you can’t compare apples to apples by putting the same kid in two different places at the same time so the typical parent is absolutely subject to wondering if the grass is greener somewhere else. I still struggle with this, and I’m very, very experienced and have had thousands of frank conversations with all manner of people on the topic. Parenting is insane.
Real Montessori is amazing. The problem is it is very expensive to achieve and requires highly trained and skilled teachers. Can it be done? Yes. Is it done? I’ve yet to see it implemented with fidelity to Maria Montessori’s actual philosophy. I have not visited the very, very fancy Montessori schools though.
We’re sending our kids to a private K-8 Montessori school. It is very cultish and everyone lives and breathes Montessori, despite being AMS certified (the other certification is AMI, the Montessori taliban) Despite the snobbery and entitlement that comes with private education, we’re currently happy with the school, but we wonder if the method is as good as they believe it is.
Oh my gosh! SO MANY TYPOS! I am fixing them now. So sorry, readers!!
I've typed out a few shockers myself, recently; and yours warmed my heart with reassurant hope that I've not necessarily lost my brains. If you, who are clearly vibrant and free, can have a slip of the "vary," then maybe I'm still ok, too.
Great post. Thank you for laying things out so clearly. One additional point: schools accredited by NAIS and/or their state independent school association are under real pressure to align with the priorities of those organizations, whether that’s DEI, sustainability, or other educational trends. To maintain accreditation and reputation, many adopt the expected language in their mission statements and policies. But in practice, some take a more measured approach, quietly adapting to their own community’s values. That’s why it’s so important to visit, talk to families, and see classrooms in action. What’s on paper doesn’t always reflect what’s happening on the ground.
Yes, I completely omitted that.
I just reread this post on my phone and saw the embarrassing number of typos in this post. I'll add in your comment about NAIS; maybe even a whole section on accreditation, because organizations like WASC and Cognia hoop public schools too.
Ugh, I LOVE my kid's current school but they are excitedly completing the accreditation process as we speak. I'm nervous about what effects this will have on their school.
My two girls have soft lives in a beautiful environment with solid friend groups, pencil and paper schools, and a regional culture that frowns upon screenlife. However. . . they're 13 and 11 and don't really know their multiplication tables.
We live in France; they are French. Homeschooling is illegal, here. I've passed some years' worth of 3ams wondering whether to move us all to the US. I wonder what catastrophic mistake it could now be, to uproot happy children even for the sake of their education. How on earth could I even judge whether a school would provide the educational and social environment necessary to justify the move?
Your guide has truly helped me to plan investigations, and I'm so grateful that you've put it together. Really, thank you.
PS I've read many of your articles before--all of them, all of them outstanding, inspiring, helpful. My regard for you runs a great depth of gratitude and admiration. Thank you again, thank you.
Maybe try some flashcard activities at home? It doesn't have to be long, you can even do them in the car/train/bus ride to other places.
Or some summer math homework, one page a day? Good luck to you in finding a better educational experience for your family.
Thank you for your kind suggestions. You are right that such things make a difference, and we do them. I'm active and ameliorate the gaps as I find them, but when such basic matters are so tattered, one can only imagine the real condition of these boats springing leaks all over.
Lately, I give math, grammar, and writing lessons that are below their grade levels but that clean sweep the dark corners of uncertainty that've settled in over the years since covid kept them at home (and practiced & accomplished). Thanks for the good luck. I'll try putting that to good use!
Amazing post ❤️
Yay my scepticism and visceral dislike of project based learning is finally validated. It have never worked for me at any level of education including law school
Thank you a million times over. What an awesome analysis and expose of the reality of public education in America.
Man! With all that you described as part of the groundwork needed to ensure the out of the home school is good, I feel like I took the easy way out by homeschooling!!! >_<
I teach in an IB school, and can totally recommend it for grades 11 and 12. It’s pretty full on and it’s all a big exam at the end which is just hard to dilute. The middle years program can suffer from a lack of coherent curriculum as textbooks are not used.
I agree, it is strong. I think the rise of AI could make some Extended Essay assignments and TOK (Theory of Knowledge) essays more problematic so it could be interesting to see what changes might happen in this area. In the end, a program that has an externally marked assessment which carries nearly all the grade weight will be more able to withstand some of the challenges you frequently discuss.
Because of how solid the curriculum is, I agree. There definitely is room in the curriculum for teachers to interject their personal beliefs, and in certain classes, the IB curriculum leans left. Parents just need to be aware of that if it's not aligned with their worldview, but the rigor of the program alone is valuable in terms or producing hard-working, thoughtful, disciplined kids.
Genuine question: you seem to be implying that personal beliefs would bias an otherwise neutral (or standardized) curricula, but doesn't that beg the question that the curricula itself is already neutral?
I went to an IB K-12 school abroad, and I recall one class (in about the 8th grade) our humanities teacher had given us a 10-15 minute talk detailing why the curriculum prevented him from teaching us the Holocaust and the history of anti-Semitism more broadly during our WW2 unit. He was obviously quite unhappy with this, but it was school policy. The reason, which he kind of danced around, was because discussing the Holocaust would inevitably lead to a discussion on the formation of Israel and, because of where we were located, that was/is a very contentious topic—to the point where anything even historically adjacent was cordoned off. I think having a more robust Holocaust history would have prevented a lot of further radicalization I experienced as a young teen (outside of school, fwiw), and it wasn't until I received that education in North America during my later high school years that my process of deradicalization began. A lot of it in part due to teachers who, well, had a decent amount of leeway with their courses (specifically thinking of a great class I took on the history of Western chauvinism and imperialism).
I've been in North America for quite some time now (late high school, uni, and grad school), but the issue of political bias in education seems to grow increasingly prevalent, be it from the systemic or personal end of things. Arguably, it's always been here and has only grown to be more visible due to the surrounding political climate. Ideally, one would be able to find a school where its values align in its charter, curricula, and pedagogy. But if the curricula itself skews a certain direction, is it necessarily a bad thing if a teacher attempts to balance it out? It *can* be (and oftentimes is), of course, but I get the impression from your post/comments (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you seem to be skeptical of it in general, and I'd like to understand your perspective on it more as both an educator and a parent.
I'd say that curriculum could be neutral, but very rarely is. Also, I'd argue that it shouldn't be in a republican system. The reason that becomes tricky is because the state DOEs collectivize education by controlling the regulations governing it for every kid in every community.
The nature of public schooling in America is meant to be small-r republican. We have local schools and a school board is elected to oversee/control them. Effectively though, we have a much more autocratic system because the funding (even local property taxes) are distributed back to the Districts through the state treasury, and the state writes the regulations. Regulations for entire states incentivize the (oligopolistic) textbook publishers to produce curriculum that meet those regulations -- and those regulations are increasingly ideological in left-leaning states, just as they used to be in right-leaning states. But textbook publishers market to the ENTIRE country, so that the ideology in the biggest markets, Illinois, California, and New York, are what drive textbook production.
The state manufactures so many regulations around education it effectively neuters the wishes of the local community. Twice in recent years, conservative boards representing the will of their constituents in California were effectively blocked from rejecting state-approved textbooks/curriculum for their children's schools that was antithetical to the dominant beliefs of the community. It ended up costing the school districts millions and they ended up paying for curriculum they didn't want with scarce categorical funds.
Teacher tenure (as it is currently iterated) compounds the problem of local control. Even if a community could get the curriculum they wanted, a teacher could subvert it by telling students the curriculum is wrong and their parents are immoral for supporting it, and those teachers have coercive power in the form of grades, that allows for consent to be engineered over time. This is especially effective now since in many households both parents work, especially in HCOL areas.
Taxpayer-funding directed by the state to public schools dictates curriculum. Why? Because the state -- removed as it is from any one locality -- sees public schooling not as primarily for the benefit of kids, but rather as a collective benefit for society. Governments refer to school as a "public good" even though it fails that economic test; the vast majority of parents would absolutely pay for education themselves in the absence of an entitlement to it. As a public good, though, the state and federal governments rationalize regulations that incentivize what is best for the health of the state, claiming it is also what is best for children.
As a teacher, I think our professional duty at the lower levels is to stick very tightly to curriculum that covers the basics of literacy and numeracy and observable science and add to that the age-appropriate stories and music and art that form the backbone of culture in our community, state, and country. In the higher grades, as in IB classes, our duty is to objectively present differing viewpoints around any contentious issues that could reasonably expected to be covered as part of the class content.
A survey of 20th Century European history course would have to cover the rise of Bolshevism and Nazism, including the Holocaust as well as the breakup of communism and the fallout of that -- including events that have led to modern-day fascism. The teacher would have to develop the ability to do so without promulgating positions as clearly right or wrong -- which makes parents really, really unhappy, especially if their worldview is the majority worldview in the community.
And here's where the rubber meets the road. I know my students couldn't expect that kind of neutrality at the schools where I had worked. I knew that my own children would be primarily not taught very much or very well and from my colleagues in the humanities in the middle and high schools, they had full cover to be as ideological as they wanted -- as long as their ideology aligned with the school administration and the loudest parents in the community (and on the PTO).
In the case you outlined, I would hope that the principal would have the fortitude to allow such a teacher the opportunity to outline lectures on the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel. Then the principal would review any such topic carefully for bias, and the kids would be instructed, possibly with a principal (or VP) in the room for maximal accountability.
If I was in a community that handled contentious issues that way, I would respect the approach -- knowing it facilitates family conversations that give me the opportunity to field any questions my child had on the topics as well as share more nuanced or belief-driven views I held on the topic.
As a professional, I would EXPECT that approach to be de rigeur, and it would help me in my work knowing my principal had my back as long as I stayed within the ethical standard of the presentation of verifiable fact when it comes to controversial topics. THAT is exactly why tenure was established, not just to guarantee a lifetime salary and allow administrators to dodge accountability for the content and quality of instruction in the classrooms they are tasked with supervising.
This is such a big question, and there are very, very big incentives at play at Federal, local, and university levels (they control the teacher's colleges and certification of individual teachers) so it's a tangled know to untangle. If I haven't done your question justice, please let me know.
(comment cut off at the end there not sure why)
...and I'd like to understand your perspective on it more as both an educator and a parent.
Re: democratic schools
„Students who attend these schools and the parents who send their kids to them seem to love them.”
Oof. I’m graduate of one. I received really great education and it allowed me to have typical humanities profile and advanced math, but it had downsides like spending 8h in school everyday, because my individualised curriculum meant classes spread throughout day in ???? pattern. Most of my class/year (42 people in total) indeed loved the school (not me tho), but they used democratic ethos to feel good about themselves and do below minimum of traditional school, opting out of advanced classes. 10 year after graduation I can attest that my cohort has almost none success stories and I know of only 3 people, including myself, who have white collar careers or anything looking like good career for that matter.
Short-term enjoyment doesn't always equal long-term success. Feelings of confidence from gaining competence is much better than enjoyment usually, and in a school setting almost always.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience. I appreciate it.
And it was high school
(We’re talking about kids of upper/upper medium class, some fabulously rich, who were expected to get amazing education and repeat successes of the parents. It mostly didn’t happen.)
I have wondered what is your opinion about the Montessori method: in a way it is classical education (e.g. didn’t deviate from phonics instruction or writing in cursive), but the ‘follow the child’ mantra can be counterproductive. And for better or worse , it has a lefty bias, highly exacerbated these days.
That’s the problem with education. Every kid is so different and you can’t compare apples to apples by putting the same kid in two different places at the same time so the typical parent is absolutely subject to wondering if the grass is greener somewhere else. I still struggle with this, and I’m very, very experienced and have had thousands of frank conversations with all manner of people on the topic. Parenting is insane.
Real Montessori is amazing. The problem is it is very expensive to achieve and requires highly trained and skilled teachers. Can it be done? Yes. Is it done? I’ve yet to see it implemented with fidelity to Maria Montessori’s actual philosophy. I have not visited the very, very fancy Montessori schools though.
We’re sending our kids to a private K-8 Montessori school. It is very cultish and everyone lives and breathes Montessori, despite being AMS certified (the other certification is AMI, the Montessori taliban) Despite the snobbery and entitlement that comes with private education, we’re currently happy with the school, but we wonder if the method is as good as they believe it is.
This reply was meant for this comment. Sorry about that. https://open.substack.com/pub/educatedandfree/p/how-to-choose-your-childs-school?r=b8lae&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=135055807