Also, you don’t have to spend nearly as many hours each day attending to your children as you might think. Many home schoolers often find they can compress a typical 6 period school day into as short as 3 hours of instruction. Some parents even split it up into afternoon and evening classes.

If you haven’t considered it, give it careful consideration and perhaps even talk to some home schooling support groups in your area.

Most college admissions processes will not admit a significant number of students from the same high school. If your child’s peers are all gunning for Stanford and they admit 10 of them whom are sharper test takers and better at padding their extra-curricular resume than yours, you will lose out. You’ll stand a much better chance if your child is one of the smaller overachievers at another school.

Again, drawing from my experience at Claremont High, you will find that even the local Claremont Colleges have this significant, though unofficial policy. High school relative merits do not account for as much as college relative merits. Your valedictorian at Claremont has about even odds at the valedictorian at Chaffey. Yet I ask you, which valedictorian has to fight off more competition for that spot?

I agree with half of what you wrote - it is my opinion, but it is not unfounded. My research is based on professional recruiting I do for many large fortune 500 companies and I do look at the complete picture of people I place. I know from personal experience that the excellent, well paid workers in the companies I recruit do not share any patterns with regards to primary and high school education.

From college onward, there is a stronger correlation, but not much.

“If what you are saying is true, then why aren’t wealthy people sending their kids to crappy public schools?”

You have a significant flaw in your argument, which is that wealthy peoplea are in general, making the smartest decision for their children. As a general rule, wealthy people are about as good as non-wealthy people in setting up their children’s future success. They determining factor is money, not education. In other words, the kids get many second chances to fail.

Yes, I am intimiately familiar with Claremont High School, and I am also equally familiar with other schools in the area, including Upland High - they are fine school districts with well trained teachers, and yes, they do have many successful graduates, many of whom are good friends of mine. However, I also have many successful colleagues who graduated from public schools which were not so highly rated, and have many friends who went to Claremont High and are currently unemployed. Again, my point is that the high school you attend has no significant effect on your financial future.

You have reaffirmed my point, which is that MOST people do not believe what I say - they do honestly believe that a high school somehow imparts and advantage to their children, and they will pay dearly for this magic feather. And I believe it is for this reason that places like South Pasadena, irrationally, will have higher home prices because a core belief that supports them is irrational.

But we’re here to become enlightened and find values. South Pasadena is not value. It is perceived value, and part of being a good contrarian investor is realizing when real value is not present and choosing accordingly.

I respectfully have to take issue with many of the arguments that you are making about education and housing.

>If you buy into South Pasadena, you are paying UP FRONT for >the costs of your 3 children’s education, and unless you have >cash, you are financing the costs of this education. This more >expensive, and often risky. Assuming all your kids are below >Kindergarten age, so they can get the full 13 years of >education, you are betting that in 12 years from now the >school will still be high quality. If the school’s ratings >drop, so does the value of your house, and you don’t get to >send your kids to that highly rated school anymore.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say because if Puckhead sends his kids to private school, he will have to pay up front in cash for the cost of their tuition. And that could be up to 40-60k a year for three kids depending on the private school.

I think putting the cost of the education into the mortgage by sending them to a good public school would be much more manageable than paying expensive private school bills in addition to mortgage payments.

Of course this all depends on what kind of house you’re looking for and what private schools you’re considering, but the cost of private schools will be much more than the home price differentials between neighborhoods like Pas and South Pas….especially if home prices are going to fall even further in the next few years.

And I think good school districts who have stood the test of time will continue to do well 12-13 years down the road. I was a product of the Claremont, CA school district which was ranked very well when I graduated in 1998. To this day it continues to do well. Established school districts with strong community involvement like South Pas and San Marino will also continue to meet high standards in education.

>One other thing I should mention regarding sending 3 kids >through public schools - it is exceedingly *rare* that a good >school district turns out superior students, both when it >comes to future college performance and career goals.

This statement just baffled me. We have a lot of excellent students that come out of good public school districts. What are you basing this on?

>The other significant factor is socialization skills, and >those are not necessarily helped by being among other students >who are high achievers. Often the best achievers are the ones >who have learned how to deal with “problem” children (i.e. >learning good confronation avoidance skills) and imperfect >teachers. They learn that the system is there to help, but it >is their own responsibility to take control of their future.

Again, is this your own observation and opinion or are you basing this on a study?

If what you are saying is true, then why aren’t wealthy people sending their kids to crappy public schools?

I think you are making very general statements about education that are completely unfounded and based purely on your own opinion.

I know what you’re trying to say, an individual can flourish in any environment if they put their mind to it.

But the average student who attends San Marino High will have many more tools and resources to succeed than a student at Morningside High in Inglewood. If this wasn’t true, nobody would care about where they sent their kids to school.

If I try to home school my kids I think they’ll run away and join the circus or Army. It’ll be an easier life with a kinder boss.

from greatschools.net:

South Pasadena

Ethnicity This District State Average
White, not Hispanic 36% 29%
Asian 35% 8%
Hispanic or Latino 16% 48%
Multiple or No Response 8% 3%
African American, not Hispanic 3% 8%
Filipino 2% 3%
American Indian or Alaska Native <1% <1%
Pacific Islander <1% <1%

Arcadia

Ethnicity This District State Average
Asian 65% 8%
White, not Hispanic 21% 29%
Hispanic or Latino 11% 48%
Filipino 2% 3%
African American, not Hispanic 1% 8%
Multiple or No Response <1% 3%
American Indian or Alaska Native <1% <1%
Pacific Islander <1% <1%

San Marino

Ethnicity This District State Average
Asian 61% 8%
White, not Hispanic 32% 29%
Hispanic or Latino 5% 48%
Multiple or No Response 1% 3%
African American, not Hispanic <1% 8%
Filipino <1% 3%
Pacific Islander <1% <1%

A significant factor in what produces effective kids is how well they learn to learn - that skill is almost always taught and reinforced by parents when they do homework. Good students do well in crappy school districts, and learn that lesson well.

The other significant factor is socialization skills, and those are not necessarily helped by being among other students who are high achievers. Often the best achievers are the ones who have learned how to deal with “problem” children (i.e. learning good confronation avoidance skills) and imperfect teachers. They learn that the system is there to help, but it is their own responsibility to take control of their future.

If you truly are interested in the future of your children, these lessons will be learned at least as effectively in a mediocre school as they will in a highly rated one.