Would you rather be in a school with aloof or helicopter parents?

[Anonymous]

While 2 is more annoying, putting your school in 1 is more risky. The kids I knew that fit the 1st profile were heavy into drugs. They had the budget and connections to buy and no one to notice/care what they were doing.

[Anonymous]

*putting your child in 1

[Anonymous]

If those were the only 2 choices, I'd pick #2 because it's less risky, i.e. If my child is influenced by his peers, I think "competitive for grades" has fewer downsides than "loosely-supervised and wealthy".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

I'm on board with group 3: Laid back, but present; a part of the community, not dominating it; give the kids agency, but guide them to stay on track; believe in lessons learned from mistakes, so make sure they have enough responsibility to make mistakes, but are watchful enough to make sure they learn through consequences; high goals, but humble; see "competitive" as teaching kids to work hard toward their personal best, which is is elevated by strong competition, not knocking down the competition, and certainly not through inappropriate means; believe in teamwork, not hierarchy or anarchy.

I cannot imagine there is a place that could pull a big enough concentration of #3 to make it the dominant culture. People as a mass are too flawed for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

I'm on board with group 3: Laid back, but present; a part of the community, not dominating it; give the kids agency, but guide them to stay on track; believe in lessons learned from mistakes, so make sure they have enough responsibility to make mistakes, but are watchful enough to make sure they learn through consequences; high goals, but humble; see "competitive" as teaching kids to work hard toward their personal best, which is is elevated by strong competition, not knocking down the competition, and certainly not through inappropriate means; believe in teamwork, not hierarchy or anarchy.

I cannot imagine there is a place that could pull a big enough concentration of #3 to make it the dominant culture. People as a mass are too flawed for that.

I think many Catholic (not all) schools fit this bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While 2 is more annoying, putting your school in 1 is more risky. The kids I knew that fit the 1st profile were heavy into drugs. They had the budget and connections to buy and no one to notice/care what they were doing.

+1 and parties

[Anonymous]

If you are not planning to rely on other parents for socializing (you have your own friends, etc), #1 is way easier to be around. If you are looking for some kind of community, both suck, #2 probably a little less.

[Anonymous]

If this is for HS and you care about college outcomes, #1 will be more likely to box your kid out of places so that could be a consideration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

I'm on board with group 3: Laid back, but present; a part of the community, not dominating it; give the kids agency, but guide them to stay on track; believe in lessons learned from mistakes, so make sure they have enough responsibility to make mistakes, but are watchful enough to make sure they learn through consequences; high goals, but humble; see "competitive" as teaching kids to work hard toward their personal best, which is is elevated by strong competition, not knocking down the competition, and certainly not through inappropriate means; believe in teamwork, not hierarchy or anarchy.

I cannot imagine there is a place that could pull a big enough concentration of #3 to make it the dominant culture. People as a mass are too flawed for that.

I think many Catholic (not all) schools fit this bill.

Of the parents I know who send their kid to Catholic school I'd say a representative enough population are #2 that I'd question it, but maybe it's just the Catholic schools near me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If those were the only 2 choices, I'd pick #2 because it's less risky, i.e. If my child is influenced by his peers, I think "competitive for grades" has fewer downsides than "loosely-supervised and wealthy".

I prefer the parents in group 1 to group 2 but I cannot argue with this logic right here and for that reason I’d put my kid in a school with group 2 families. They’ll be more stressed about grades , but I can help them manage that stress better then I can help them navigate billionaires kids with access to drugs and fast cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

I'm on board with group 3: Laid back, but present; a part of the community, not dominating it; give the kids agency, but guide them to stay on track; believe in lessons learned from mistakes, so make sure they have enough responsibility to make mistakes, but are watchful enough to make sure they learn through consequences; high goals, but humble; see "competitive" as teaching kids to work hard toward their personal best, which is is elevated by strong competition, not knocking down the competition, and certainly not through inappropriate means; believe in teamwork, not hierarchy or anarchy.

I cannot imagine there is a place that could pull a big enough concentration of #3 to make it the dominant culture. People as a mass are too flawed for that.

I think many Catholic (not all) schools fit this bill.

The catholic schools near me take the kids who were expelled from the public schools. And the parents lean heavily socially conservative . I think this would be the worst fit, personally- judgmental , socially conservative families with kids who have serious behavioral issues in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

I'm on board with group 3: Laid back, but present; a part of the community, not dominating it; give the kids agency, but guide them to stay on track; believe in lessons learned from mistakes, so make sure they have enough responsibility to make mistakes, but are watchful enough to make sure they learn through consequences; high goals, but humble; see "competitive" as teaching kids to work hard toward their personal best, which is is elevated by strong competition, not knocking down the competition, and certainly not through inappropriate means; believe in teamwork, not hierarchy or anarchy.

I cannot imagine there is a place that could pull a big enough concentration of #3 to make it the dominant culture. People as a mass are too flawed for that.

I think many Catholic (not all) schools fit this bill.

The catholic schools near me take the kids who were expelled from the public schools. And the parents lean heavily socially conservative . I think this would be the worst fit, personally- judgmental , socially conservative families with kids who have serious behavioral issues in high school.

Where do you live?

[Anonymous]

Which one are you, OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which one are you, OP?

Correct question. Though #1 is easiest to deal with overall.

If you're not in #2, you'll find #2 annoying because you'll be bitter about #2's kids' effort, and likely, outcome. If you're in #2, you'll have more anxiety, but you already had that!

If you're not in #1, you just get to ignore them. They don't affect you or your kid. If you're in #1, you'll probably like them for the most part.

[Anonymous]

OP - I'm curious how you know this without being part of the school community. I have found at our schools (we have been at 4) that both of these parents exist everywhere - as do the in between.