Maybe publicity will change PAUSD but don't count on it.

This article was already mentioned on TS a few days ago.

If you read the article well, you see that the problem goes way beyond the schools and school reforms. Not something that most district parents like to hear.

This article pointed out the complexity of the causes of student suicides and, unlike the hysteria on this forum, recognized that the problems go far beyond the schools, and involve the whole community, in particular the brand of parenting found in Palo Alto. [Portion removed.]

Bury,

You may not have finished reading.

Yes it starts with the mantra of parent expectations and Silicon Valley etc etc. But concludes with the contradictions which exist in the schools, and school leadership.

IMO institutionalized messed up messages are by far the most crushing. OUCH!

"Soon after lamenting the pressure, Dr. McGee raved about a student who was part of a math team that finished first in January in a national competition, and about the new performing arts center under construction, and about the coming $24 million athletic facility funded by a private family foundation. "

and

"Esther Wojcicki, the teacher who oversees the Palo Alto High School newspaper, lamented the competitive environment but noted seconds later that the school paper had just won a “Gold Crown” award from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and that the two dozen students sitting at computer terminals at 4 p.m. that day were thrilled to stay until 9 p.m. to put out the school magazine because they have so much fun doing it."

“My job is not to get you into Stanford,” he said he tells parents and students. “It’s to teach them to learn how to learn, to think, to work together — learn how to explore, collaborate, learn to be curious and creative.”

Some parents hear it, he said, but “a lot of families and parents don’t hear the message and say: compete and compete.”

-------------------------------

Well, first off, McGee is unaware that only people with connections are admitted into Stanford from PAUSD because there are too many people with connections (parents who are professors or alums) so everyone else need not apply.

Secondly, McGee has a son who did not attend college and he is fine with it. I think he is unaware of what it takes to be admitted to even second-tier colleges these days. He doesn't realize that the teachers make it even more competitive because they don't want to give As to every student in the classroom, even if they are all capable of As, so they make the class more difficult so there is diversity in their grades. Learning to be "curious and creative" just doesn't cut it for college admissions. They want to see 3.75+ GPAs and high SATs. One cannot apply to a top-tier university and claim they love learning if they don't have the minimum GPA and SAT scores for acceptance.

McGee mistakenly believes we are all Tiger Parents and is vastly unaware of the issues. We aren't all expecting our children to attend top-tier universities, but yes, we do want SOME name recognition (not, "Where is THAT? I've never heard of it) which isn't asking too much. We aren't all Tiger Parents, but he cannot expect us to all settle for CalState Fresno type or some unknown school.

I've been vocal here about unhappy I am with how the UC system is run and how it's not the option that it should be for in-state residents. It should be affordable and accessible to good, but not great, students. I honestly think we'd see less stress if families knew they had an affordable, high-quality, accessible option for college that didn't depend on a hook or the essay of the year.

That said, it's actually *easier*, not harder to get into a good school than it was a couple of years back. What's harder is getting into the particular school of your choice. The overall number of applications has increased, but not the number of kids applying. And each kid can only go to one school at a time.

Also, apply to schools that aren't the Ivy League, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Cal or UCLA and things get easier. There are plenty of high-profile, excellent schools that fall into that category.

As for Stanford--yep, faculty kids and rich donor/alums account for the relatively high percentage of admits, but you don't have to have those hooks. You just need *another* hook . . . (sigh)

"Well, first off, McGee is unaware that only people with connections are admitted into Stanford from PAUSD because there are too many people with connections (parents who are professors or alums) so everyone else need not apply."
This isn't true... while it's true that many students from PAUSD that are admitted do have parental connections, not all of them do. I can think of numerous families where the eldest child had no connection (but from that point on the younger siblings did). Also, you forget student athletes, who PAUSD generally sends 1 every year or two, sometimes more -- oftentimes they don't have direct connections with the university.

"McGee mistakenly believes we are all Tiger Parents and is vastly unaware of the issues. We aren't all expecting our children to attend top-tier universities, but yes, we do want SOME name recognition (not, "Where is THAT? I've never heard of it) which isn't asking too much. We aren't all Tiger Parents, but he cannot expect us to all settle for CalState Fresno type or some unknown school."
Congratulations on perpetuating the myth that colleges can be "ranked" easily and that it's "bad" to go to (what you consider) an unknown school. But also thank you for admitting that you partly care about where your children go to college because you want to be able to say "Well MY child goes to XXX famous school" (with name recognition) proudly --rather than the more reasonable but perhaps not quite as braggy "My child opted for a school which you may not be familiar with but is actually quite good in the area (s)he wants to study" -- rather than sheerly caring about what's a good fit.
Also, what's wrong with Fresno State? First off, it certainly does have some name recognition here - Davante Adams, a fairly popular player who was on Paly's 2010 championship team, attended there and is now in the NFL (Web Link Unlike many colleges, it's actually relatively affordable and actually has a lot of economic diversity (those top schools you seem to like... not so much. At all). From what I recall, Fresno state also has a sense of community built around their sports team (read: they have school loyalty). Yes -- it isn't Harvard. But there's no need to shame it. If you're going to call out a school no one's heard of, don't call out a CSU while you're in California -- instead call out Sweet Briar which I doubt many people in PA had heard of until they started having financial issues, and even now, I doubt anyone is particularly familiar with it) or some other tiny school,

Apropos of exactly nothing I just think it is really odd if it was the case that someone was attending Stanford due to her grandma being on the Board of Trustees, and her Grampy giving 50 million to build a graduate dorm telling all the little people how great Fresno State is. I don't know about you but if that happened I would find it really insulting. Do you have any cake? I think we are supposed to eat some now.

It is easy to shoot the messenger. C's message, however, is spot on.

Parents are too worried about what their friends will think of their kid's college. And this is very detrimental to the children.

I know a family that pushed their kid to go to a university she did not want to go to. Her real first choice was a CSU that she really liked. However, the child went to the more prestigious university insisted on by her parents and where she barely got in after being wait-listed. Now, she is struggling and extremely unhappy there. But the parents can proudly say that their daughter goes to UC so and so... Sad.

Haha, Robespierre, right on. Being from a line of elite universities, why would she choose less than? That said, they are generally a nice family considering the wealth.

Ex Paly Parent,
My family has literally never had so much as a conversation with our child about where to go to college. If we had had reasonable alternatives, we would have done private, charter, or even homeschool the last 3 years instead of enduring this crappy gauntlet. If you gave Palo Alto parents the choice tomorrow, a very large fraction of them would choose a non-graded option for their child's high school education. Not all, sure. But so many it would make your head spin.

Naturally, none of the NYT critics were in attendance at last night's documentary showing, for which all 900 tix were taken within the first few hours and an overflow crowd of over 600 watched at the gym. Most were parents. On a TUESDAY night, school night. (That's pretty darned unlikely here for almost anything else even if they were giving away free gourmet food.) These are all parents wanting a more innovative approach in education. I know this because they took a poll afterwards! Aside from just knowing people. What I think the administration doesn't realize is that sentiment was already strong in the community and the film was preaching to the choir.

You never heard that, though, because blaming parents is just such an easy thing to do. (The parents are too strict/permissive. The parents are too involved/uninvolved. The parents care too much/too little about education. The parents are too accomplished/not accomplished enough to be role models. See what I mean? Push some, just not so much. The line is illusive, but we'll judge by setting it just beyond where the parents are so we can blame them!)

At what point do people start saying, this is ludicrous, this doesn't really make sense and maybe we should be looking for other reasons for the depression epidemic. I mean, since when did it become (in a normal educational system) tantamount to inviting suicide by asking a child how they did on a math test? Or for kids to want to do well and be proud of an accomplishment? Kids want to challenge themselves. We need a system that allows them to do that safely, and allows all kids to feel valued and fulfilled in learning.

By the way, one of the quotes by McGee was jarring. McGee is quoted as being proud " about the coming $24 million athletic facility funded" Since when did it become $24 million? When Skelly left, he had put another $16-20 million into it of district funds. I'm not complaining, I'm just wondering where the $20 million went.

I heard the Superintendent describe how some students were selected for Singapore. This made me really angry. My child, a very advanced student in science, found out about the trip after others were selected. There was no chance to apply, there was no form to fill out. They were just picked by certain teachers who picked their favorites. A few from Gunn a few from Paly, hand-selected. Parents were not told. I asked my child why he was not selected and he said that he didn't know. This is unacceptable. This is a very big opportunity, that will advantage some kids over others, and the criteria for selection was totally unknown. In a public school, that is wrong. Superintendent McGee did not even know how students were selected, he said that he just got names from each school. That's also unacceptable.

I also question the cost of this trip. It seems like a resume building thing for certain wealthy families. Travel expense to go to Singapore for one week? And what kind of "authentic" anything can students do in one week? This is not independent research. To do research, a scientist spends months or even years preparing the experiment, reading the literature, understanding the problem, and ensuring that the protocols are correct before touching a lab. These students did not do anything authentic. They stepped off an airplane and were handed projects to work on. That is offensive. Parents paid thousands, kids were secretly picked for being favorites, parents funded it, these kids were advantaged, the whole thing is labeled authentic and independent when it was anything but. This is exactly the wrong thing for Palo Alto. There should be a school-board investigation into selection. Who did it, how they did it, why no application process, what about poorer students.

This is a travesty. I do not think Dr. McGee should be retained. Goes without saying that Measure A is a mistake.

@True...a nice family?

Rich families, just to take a random example here, from PA include this one, in which the patriarch said:

“Somebody my age has lived through the best and easiest period that ever happened in the history of the world — the lowest death rates, the highest investment production, biggest increases in most people’s standards of living,” Munger said. “If you’re unhappy with what you’ve had over the last 50 years, you have an unfortunate misappraisal of life.”

See: Web Link

That particular Oligarch, advantaged by the hereditary privilege of his own grandfather's accumulated wealth and privilege, is described in the article as "staggeringly offensive" also has "staggeringly offensive" children:

Web Link

This is a Capetian dynasty with all the problems of hereditary wealth, privilege and inherent regression to the mean of intelligence and ability that implies. Inequality has reached the point of food riots and urban rebellion. This family is the face of all that is wrong in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Watts. If there was an ice floe we could stick them on, I would vote for that. Unfortunately, due to climate change, caused by their excesses, we don't even have ice floes anymore.

Very angry parent,

I agree with most of what you say. I don't agree about McGee. When you pick a beautiful piece of fruit and put it in a basket full of stuff rotting to high heaven, the result is inevitable. We need to fix the basket before it's too late, not toss the good with the bad.

@ Very Angry Parent,
Would you be as offended by the science trip had your son been chosen to attend?

On another note, it does seem that many parents take their child's success as their own, but blames the child for failures. I recently heard a man ask a mom where their daughter was going to school. The mom said UCLA. The man said, oh that's a great city, good for her, etc..., and the mom responded, "Thank you." as if she was the one that did the work to get in. Very odd.

@Robespierre: Big digression, but at least they are contributing to society. Have you ever met them? I have a child who went to school with "C' and I worked with the mom on a school issue. We have no idea how much they have donated to PiE and other philanthropy contributions. The ultra rich are always targets for criticism. "C"s mom volunteers from one issue to another and she aint wearing Prada. One would never know how loaded they are by meeting them or seeing their house. We may not agree with their political beliefs, but they have every right to invest in them. Frankly, I get tired of being in the Top 1% where we get taxed excessively while others who spend all their money on themselves live off our government because they haven't planned properly or worked hard enough. I think the only ones who should be living off our government are veterans. Obviously, we need to agree to disagree. Cheers.

@Jim H,
Very Angry Parent's point was about fairness. This is a public school system. The issue of fairness has legal implications as well. When some kids get paid trips to Singapore with the superintendent -- with kids who didn't go through any kind of fair and open selection process -- that does raise questions. You don't know VAP and neither do I. The snark was uncalled for and avoided the real issue which is fairness and important in a public school system.

Secondly, a parent sticking up for a child in an unfair system is likely to make the child feel more valued, and has nothing at all to do with the ugly stereotype you are trying to overlay on VAP's legitimate fairness concern. And anyway, when people say any kind of a compliment in this culture, even to one's family, the usual response is to say Thank You. Strange, but it is. Just like when someone asks you how you are, the usual response is to say "Fine". It's a greeting, not an assessment of one's health or relationships.

VAP is right, a trip like that is a great experience and a great advantage for the chosen students. Even in a private school, the families would be really upset if the process were so secret and arbitrary. In a public school, it may have broken laws.

@Very angry parent

I am not saying all parents are obsessed with the prestige of the university their kids attend, and I am sure you are not. However, it is a fact that many, many parents are, the so-called "tiger" parents of any ethnic background.

Maybe there were 1500 parents at the talk (I am done as a PAUSD parent recently and so I did not attend). However, how is it representative of the overall community of thousands of parents in PAUSD? Maybe it was an already somewhat self-selected group. And maybe they agreed with everything but some are still hung up on university brand. There are many people with contradictory thoughts in the world.

Furthermore, I agree that parents are not the entire problem, and so does the article actually. Teachers who gloat about awards and other uber achievement are definitely part of the problem. I also do agree that an undisclosed selection process to pick a few students for an overseas trip, all expenses paid, is unacceptable in a public school district. Period. I would like to try and make you feel better about your child though. I really do not think there is any long term benefit to having participated in that trip. Maybe temporarily, yes maybe for college admissions, but not for the rest of his/her life.

Now, about C. and her family. I do not know her family personally. I certainly am not at all from the same circle of wealth etc. However, they could have sent C. to a private school very easily and chose their public school instead, which to me already says a lot about who they are. Furthermore, I knew C. when I helped at Paly. I can tell you she is a very nice girl who does not flaunt her wealth at all. She is very polite and unassuming. So, please, people, do not bash her. She does not deserve it.

"You never heard that, though, because blaming parents is just such an easy thing to do. (The parents are too strict/permissive. The parents are too involved/uninvolved. The parents care too much/too little about education. The parents are too accomplished/not accomplished enough to be role models. See what I mean? Push some, just not so much. The line is illusive, but we'll judge by setting it just beyond where the parents are so we can blame them!)

My family has literally never had so much as a conversation with our child about where to go to college. If we had had reasonable alternatives, we would have done private, charter, or even homeschool the last 3 years instead of enduring this crappy gauntlet. If you gave Palo Alto parents the choice tomorrow, a very large fraction of them would choose a non-graded option for their child's high school education. Not all, sure. But so many it would make your head spin."

Just to be clear, I wasn't blaming "tiger" parents. I wasn't saying that parents are forcing their children to go to schools that aren't right for them, or forcing them to take classes they don't want. What I meant to point out is something that I feel our community often overlooks -- even if you tell your child that it doesn't matter where they go to school as many parents do, we can read between the lines and tell that you DO care ("Oh wow, you'll be so happy there, what an accomplishment, etc. for what's considered a top school and just "Congratulations" for another type, for example). I know of parents who would opt for a not-graded alternative yet I would never say their children thought that their parents didn't care where they went to college (two unrelated issues in my opinion). Don't get me wrong, most of the college discussion of who is going where takes place at school -- but it often takes place at home too.

The New York Times article addresses these contradictions -- Parents say "We just want you to learn the material" but ask about grades. Often parents tell their children "We don't care where you go" but they're proud to declare where their child got accepted, or is attending provided it's a "good" school on the typical PA higher-education track. etc. It's something worth pointing out.

This quote -- "Perhaps that explains some of the doublespeak: Parents are searching for language to encourage their children, even push them, but not crush them" -- is particularly relevant.

Also on a semi-unrelated note I encourage everyone to read Web Link or mention it the next time someone says anything along the lines of how important the Ivies are (or pass it along to your kids). I found it reassuring to read when I was in HS (although it is from quite a bit ago).

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

@ C,

I appreciate your thoughts but I don't think you are getting my point. I think that whole line of reasoning from that article, that you can draw a line between anything in that article and suicide is getting ludicrous. I think we are barking up the wrong tree. People are concluding that because they don't know what else could be causing it, and they think that just because there might be something wrong or that could be improved, that therefore that is the problem. Even when you can put out an email to families about a project-based-learning film and give out 1500 tix to an audience that is already sold on the idea without so much as blinking.

OK, if you really want me to be honest, my kid has probably within the last 3 years expressed wanting to go to Stanford in order to live at home (in the context of thinking about the future) and I have discouraged it because I didn't think Stanford was a good educational match. I've also discouraged Foothill because of said kid getting sick in the older buildings, but otherwise would be thrilled and will be trying to figure out what is possible in the newer buildings. You happy?

NO -- what you are saying does not happen in my house. Doesn't. Period. And even if it is happening in some houses in Palo Alto, I am simply not convinced that there is any reason to believe it is making kids suicidal. Especially not compared to aspects of our school system like measuring kids against each other constantly, giving grades that judge them rather than helping them learn, and constantly suppressing their curiosity and creativity or giving them so much homework they don't have a life. And nevermind the district not even dealing with the possible environmental contributors.

Imagine if kids took computer-based tests that told them when they got something wrong, then immediately pulled them aside to teach them what they just missed, and then on the next test, knew to run a little of the same material by them in order to ensure they had learned it? Every kid would get A's. The tests and grades would be a tool to help kids learn. Such tools are out there now. The point of an educational system is to help kids learn. Me, personally, I don't even think tests and homework and separated subjects are that helpful, just like the film showed. They are so 19th-century Prussian model, and so not 21st century positive learning tool. As Sir Ken Robinson (who was in the film) says, if you sit kids down and force them to do low-grade clerical work all day, what do you expect? I think that is WAY more likely to be a contributor to kids being depressed than parents talking about college, which used to be a good thing. (Remember all that stuff about role models and how important it is to talk about college?) But forcing kids into nothing but low-grade clerical work all day AND expecting them to be at the top of that pernicious heap? Sure, recipe for depression. The answer is not to make parents afraid to talk about college, it's to improve our educational system so it meets its own stated vision of optimizing every child's education.

Families in this district are begging for a more positive system in which grades aren't important but learning is. When can we get around to talking about that? When can we get around to DOING that instead of district people constantly putting off those parents who have been asking?

I had a foster brother who was abused his whole life and taken advantage of by his own family. Literally tossed out of the house for and with nothing. He lived with us in high school, and ended up going to military then college and was very successful. He told me later one of the things that made the greatest difference to him was that our family just assumed he was a good person and smart, we just kind of expected him to go to college and succeed like the air we breathed. It didn't make him suicidal, it gave him hope and the confidence in himself to try and eventually succeed.

This whole idea that Palo Alto parents are constantly pushing Ivy colleges isn't reflected in my experience, and I really think the whole idea that challenging oneself and aiming for success is just one false move from suicide is just a pernicious crock that could do real harm. It doesn't reflect what's really going on any more than it fits with the 1500 mostly parents who came out on a TUESDAY night to watch an educational documentary and asked question after question about how we can get project-based learning here by next year. THOSE are the Palo Alto parents I'm seeing.

"I think that whole line of reasoning from that article, that you can draw a line between anything in that article and suicide is getting ludicrous. I think we are barking up the wrong tree. People are concluding that because they don't know what else could be causing it, and they think that just because there might be something wrong or that could be improved, that therefore that is the problem."

I didn't intend for my statements about improving culture to be as an anti-suicide measure, though rereading my posts I understand why you would think that. I intended them to just shed light on something I've observed and find at least slightly problematic, because the article has some evidence supporting my idea. But with that said, the tune of the NYT article is "what's causing suicide" -- I intentionally didn't mention it here (I don't think I said "suicide" in any of my posts) because I didn't want to make claims about something I could never know but I suppose the omission is misleading. I agree that people are making claims about why each suicide happened to serve their own purposes - and I've intentionally tried to avoid being one of them.

"This whole idea that Palo Alto parents are constantly pushing Ivy colleges isn't reflected in my experience."
To some extent it is in mine -- but it's not just the Ivies (it's really any school)... and again, as I wrote earlier, I don't mean to say parents are telling them to take certain classes or do certain activities or join certain extracurriculars, but just... certain colleges *seem* so much better as a result of both student and parental reactions to them (or they can seem worse, depending). I originally posted in response to someone who said something along the lines of 'don't blame the parents' -- I'm not trying to blame, but I did want to shed light on an issue that I think is fairly hidden. And I'm not trying to "stop parents from talking about college" but I would like for the differences of reaction between colleges to at least be reduced. I posted earlier that I'd observed this difference over a "top" school and good but "lower-tier" one: "Oh wow, you'll be so happy there, what an accomplishment, you must've worked so hard etc." versus just "Congratulations." I'm not here to push policy, I'm here to give food for thought. Your experience hasn't overlapped with mine, and that's a good thing.

@C
Thanks for the explanation. But this whole meme about the ivy college pusher is getting to be something of a bogeyman, and the real problems and efforts that would help ignored because of it. This article really took that whole business to an extreme - it's just getting ludicrous.

@Ex Paly Parent,
You wrote "Maybe there were 1500 parents at the talk (I am done as a PAUSD parent recently and so I did not attend). However, how is it representative of the overall community of thousands of parents in PAUSD? Maybe it was an already somewhat self-selected group. And maybe they agreed with everything but some are still hung up on university brand." (The poll at the end of the film directly contradicted your speculation, just so you know.)

Do you really understand how slim are the straws at which you are grasping? There are 4000 high school students. 1500 parents was just the number based on how large the crowd/waiting list was the night they opened up for tickets, they then let everyone who wanted to attend the overflow ask for tickets. The total crowd could have been even larger. 1800? more? There were kids among the audience, but most attendees were parents, and in so many cases, not both parents in a family (school night). Given the poll, the vast majority of attendees were parents of high school students or entering high school students If we consider that some percentage of students have siblings, the parents who showed up for that documentary represent a large percentage of the entire parent community of upper school students in town.

I am sitting here stressed to high heaven over having to deal with another incident that dredges up all the damaging drama and crap from the district the last 3 years - I know it is happening to other families, and frankly it is a testament to the extremely strong mental health and home support among parents that a few people in the district office haven't been tarred and feathered. All the toxic things we are subject to are being ignored while people keep harping on these NON ISSUES.

The parent community is crying out for a change in the way of education in this town so that their kids can have fulfilling and joyful learning experiences. (Now shout that!) THE PARENT COMMUNITY IN THIS TOWN IS CRYING OUT FOR A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF EDUCATION SO THAT THEIR KIDS CAN HAVE FULFILLING AND JOYFUL -- AND YES, SUCCESSFUL -- LEARNING EXPERIENCES. Now can everyone just please take a fraction of the energy they put into flogging the tiger parent/ivy college meme and try to help?

@ It's about trust

I have no problem with your not agreeing with me. As I said, we are done with PAUSD. My children actually had a good experience in PA schools overall, but we did refuse to play the game. We did it on our own terms. True, my kids did not go to ivies or other "acceptable" "top" universities, but we do not care. They are doing extremely well now (better than some Ivy educated classmates) and are happy and well adjusted.

I will leave it to others to fight whatever battles that need to be fought.

Cheers

Hi Ex Paly Parent,

I have no quibble with you either, except to please ask you and everyone else to please stop forwarding the tiger parent meme, it's taking the focus off the fact that there are thousands of parents in this district who prioritize a joyful and engaging learning experience, and want a place that allows creativity and curiosity to flourish. The movie audience last night was this impossible to ignore evidence of what is really going on -- parents who want to innovate and have a completely different, supportive program -- and yet it gets ignored.

I wish you well.

@It's about Trust

[Portion removed.]

I'd like people to drop the parent blaming theme as unproductive and often misdirected. But I do think there are cultural forces at play that influence parenting styles and can make it difficult to come to agreement on policies that best meet kids' needs. It's often not what individual parents are doing or saying, it's what the culture seems to value or reward that kids tune in to as they deal with the present and try to shape the future.

I hope that Challenge Success, Project Based Learning, and Save the 2008 will continue to challenge the status quo and generate a discussion that will result in taking significant steps to improve our students' lives, with just as much success (variously defined) and more happiness than at present.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

No one, and I mean no one, wants to read the Jerry/Parent Another Neighborhood personal feud.

Please stop. You both seems to care about students. Jerry, with no kids in the district and very little familiarity with the current admins, you surely have to admit that you don't really have any basis for discrediting Parent's experiences? And Parent, Jerry is entitled to his pro-union views as a teacher even if you don't agree, right?

Can't you both have a time-out or something?

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]