Wakefield? What stands out and how is the school system? (Boston: fit in, for sale)

[drouhin]

I don't think you need to worry about the school system. I'm looking at the highschool "program of studies" file:

http://www.wakefield.k12.ma.us/highs...0%202.5.09.pdf

...and it looks like they've made plenty of provision for the most capable and motivated students.

I see honors-level courses and AP courses in Calculus, Statistics, Computer Studies, Economics, English, Spanish, Latin, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, US History, Government and Politics. You may want to check with the school and see what scores their AP students achieve to get a feel for how effectively the most demanding subjects are taught, but at a glance, this doesn't look like second-rate coursework.

[ogre]

I'll join the chorus of those suggesting that you need not feel that anything short of the school systems in the wealthiest suburbs would mean shortchanging your children. The school systems in towns like Lincoln, Weston, and Newton, to name a few examples, are comparable to elite private schools, both in terms of the classes and extracurricular programs they offer and in that the entire school systems, from kindergarten on, are geared toward the single purpose of prepping the kids for college. A school system can fall short of these standards and still be really good.

In fact, depending on the kid, there may be some disadvantage to being schooled in this kind of rarified setting, where there can be tremendous pressure to achieve, where anything short of being admitted to Harvard might seem like failure, and where the kid may miss out on the real-world education that comes from interacting in everyday life with people who are regular folks who do not necessarily aspire to be Fortune 500 CEO's.

Kudos to Drouhin for providing that link to the Wakefield school system. Information of this sort, along with info on the availability of good extracurricular programs, which can contribute greatly to an all-around education, gives a better idea of the true quality of a school system than the question of whether that system happens to be generally known as one of the locally elite powerhouse school systerms.

In addition to researching this information, you might even want to have some conversations with school administrators to get a feel for the atmosphere and educational philosophy of the shools in a town you are considering, maybe also learning any information the administrators might have about what occupations a high school's students are pursuing after graduation. This kind of info will give you more of the nitty-gritty feel for a school system's true quality than general reputation will. If you do this kind of investigation for towns you may be considering, I think you will find that the towns with the big-name school systems are far from being the only ones that do an excellent job of preparing their students to be successful in life.

[Beantown_mama]

I agree with the above. Many of the schools in Mass are excellent, even the ones that are not in Lexington, Winchester, or Newton. Some nice towns with good schools are Reading, Wakefield, Lynnfield, Melrose. If you google any of these towns you will see that the schools have high standards too! Melrose High ranked 24th in state - Melrose - Your Town - Boston.com). The houses just aren't $1,000,000.

[syracusa]

I just wanted to say thank you again to all posters who took the time to help us, we really appreciate the great help we received on this forum.

We decided to seriously consider the Wakefield area too, though we are still a little bit confused about schools. The reality is that all we have right now boils down to official school rankings (based on standardized tests) and what people on this forum say, qualitatively speaking.

At this very moment we cannot shop around for specific schools in a "local", face-to-face manner, because we are still in Atlanta and all we'll get before making a decision about renting a house will be a week in Boston at the beginning of November.

We took a look at Wakefield schools on "schoolmatters.com" and we noticed that several schools had Math scores in the 50% range or so.
Now...correct me if I am wrong, does a score of 50% means that 50% of students FAILED the math standardized test? Because that sounds like an awful lot of kids who cannot deal with basic math.
Or does it mean that children at that school fell in the 50th percentile of all the students who took the standardized test in MA?

At this moment our first house on the list - from what it is available right now - is a house in Arlington. Did I understand correctly that schools there are considered overall better than the Wakefield ones?

I remember a thread on this board where two camps were debating the merits of Arlington vs. Lexington and camp no2 was making Arlington sound not agt all great compared to Lexington. Someone even called it a "rough area". If anyone cares to throw in a few cents about the merits of this view and about Arlington schools, in general, as compared to Newton and Lexington but also to Wakefield, we would be very grateful. Thank you so much again!

[CaseyB]

The schoolmatters site is confusing unless you know what those percentages mean. It looks like they are leaving out the other catagory of kids who are advanced in the subject that was tested. It's a national site, and these aren't national tests they are trying to measure.

This would give you a better idea of the true picture: 2009 MCAS Results - Wakefield Public Schools - The Boston Globe - Boston.com

[holden125]

Originally Posted by syracusa

I remember a thread on this board where two camps were debating the merits of Arlington vs. Lexington and camp no2 was making Arlington sound not agt all great compared to Lexington. Someone even called it a "rough area". If anyone cares to throw in a few cents about the merits of this view and about Arlington schools, in general, as compared to Newton and Lexington but also to Wakefield, we would be very grateful. Thank you so much again!

If it's the same one you've seen, I was active in the Arlington/Lexington debate. As I recall the person who called it a "rough area" was essentially a snob who wanted to move from a hip part of Cambridge to Lexington, where her sister lived. The idea of Arlington as a "rough area" is one of the more laughable things I've heard on this board.

A key difference between Arlington and Lexington is that Arlington's population density is several times higher. In some parts of the town there are (egads!) multiple-family houses. To some people that alone make it a bad area. While Lexington is more spread out, and more uniformly affluent, Arlington is far from a "rough area." Go to Uphams Corner, Lynn, or Chelsea for a "rough area."

A couple of decades ago the town was much more blue-collar and townie-oriented than today. Today's Arlington has a prettty good restaurant scene and a lot of realtively recent arrivals whose gravitational pull is to Cambridge. You'd find more Obama Democrats than Reagan Democrats.

I spent 7 years in the Arlington schools, though my family moved away just as I was to start high school. I did very well educationally. My understanding is that the schools are as good, or better, today, because the town's population has shifted to a more educated and white collar base. The Brackett school I attended has been replaced with a brand new building that is often ranked as the best, or one of the best, public elementary schools in the state.

Overall, the scores in Arlington will probably not be as high as in Newton or Lexington, but that does not mean that the education is worse. I understand the school of thought that students will have a stronger education if they are around other smart kids, because the discussion can then take place at a higher level. But I don't think lower aggregate test scores necessarily indicate that particular kids are getting a less comprehensive education. It just means they're around people of different backgrounds, some of whom have a tougher time with school. I am not sure that's a bad thing, since that's the way it is in the real world. My sense, after attending schools in Arlington and in a couple of wealthier districts, was that my education in Arlington was just as strong but the students there generally lacked the sense of elitism or entitlement I thought I perceived in some other towns.

Other things to consider are that the Newton and Lexington school districts are excellent, but can be high pressure. And going to school there can actually hurt when the time comes to apply to colleges. Because Newton North, for example, is such a big school and has such a large number of high-performing students who want to go to top colleges, often the admissions officers at those colleges will say to themselves, "well, we can't take 50 people from Newton North," and only the top of that group will be accepted.

It is true that Arlington is smaller in population, and not quite as affluent, so there are fewer school activities available (but still more than most people have time for-Newton and Lexington's offerings are beyond extensive). Lexington also has much higher property taxes, having both higher home valuations and a higher tax rate. It's something like $13.31 per $1,000 of assessed value. Newton is just under $10, Arlington somewhere in between as I recall, but with smaller assessed values and thus somewhat lower taxes.

It's hard for me to compare to Wakefield, but I have similar impressions about Wakefield. It's a nice town with very good public schools, but because it's not as uniformly wealthy as some other towns in the area, there are people who don't really have it in mind as a super-duper school district. Which is not the same as the schools actually being mediocre.

Here are some more recent articles about Arlington, the "rough area":

Arlington is hottest place in Eastern Mass. - The Boston Globe
More bang for your buck - The Boston Globe

[holden125]

One other thought about Arlington, for what this anecdotal evidence is worth. A good friend of mine who's lived 15 years in Boston but is not originally from the area, said to me recently: "I know a bunch of you people from Arlington, and everyone says that Arlington was kind of boring and they could not wait to grow up and move to Boston or New York or Paris or Tokyo. I hear all about how Arlington was nothing special, but every single one of you from Arlington that I've met is a doctor, professor, lawyer, architect, cancer researcher, or something like that. There must be people from Arlington who don't go on to top jobs, but I don't know any."

[syracusa]

Holden and Casey,

Your inputs are truly appreciated - here are some of my thoughts.

Regarding schools (hot ones and "good enough" ones) and the variety of philosophies surrounding them - I should perhaps mention that my own view is, of course, influenced by my personal experience as a young student. Granted, this personal experience applies to a much different time and place - 80's and 90's socialist Eastern Europe...at the end of the day, the more things change the more they stay the same.

I went to one of those "good enough" elementary and middle schools where I ended up being proclaimed one of the top 5 students in the entire school. Oh, fame! Teachers loved me, honors were pouring, I had acquired "celebrity" status and for years I thought I was "as hot as they came".

At 15 I gained admission into the high-school considered the best in my country at the time. Because such admissions were based on very strict written examinations, there was an exam score-based list with a cut-off line. Above were a few "chosen ones", below an endless list of rejected students. I got in somewhere towards the end of the list, but hey, I was big time IN.

Well...the experience that followed was a shock to the system. For the first time I found out that "all that", academically speaking, did not mean what I thought it meant. In other words, it wasn't "me". There were many other students in my class, coming from ...let's call them "Newton-like" areas, who could have given me an academic run for my money at any time of the day or night. The experience was humbling, to say the least. Throughout high-school I remained somewhere in the bottom third of my class and I always felt I was a bit "lesser" academically than I should have been. Granted, this was the most prestigious high-school in the country, but still. At that rarified level, I was never that "great".

All this put it in perspective for me. This is why I still have certain reservations when I hear about the "real world" approach to schools.

I myself was "around people of different backgrounds, some of whom had a tougher time with school". While diversity of background may indeed mirror the real world, such diversity does usually drag the overall academic level down, simply because -as some of you said - some kids will be really good and others will have a tough time. When most students are very good the entire academic business happens at a much higher level - and your kids will just have to "go with it", like it or not.

I made it through my high-school safe and sound, the pressure didn't kill me, and things worked out well in the end.

That being said, we are nowhere close to be set on Newton, but nowhere close to proclaiming Newton out of our league either. I say the "H" with the leagues.

I have posted a different thread asking about a possible aversion towards two-family homes. We got the impression that people there see them as "undesirable". Any particular reason beyond pure prestige?

Sometimes it just sounds like a really good deal to be the most "modest" folk in the "least modest" area. The town amenities can be great from all the money floating around, let alone the school amenities. Looking at some of the two-family houses under 500,000 in Newton, we wonder what would be wrong with a unit like that. Are people afraid that neighbors would disturb them? In Atlanta, we lived in a townhouse and were glued to neighbors left and right - and just LOVED it. Granted, in MA such "townhomes" are glued horizontally, not vertically, which could mean one family might jump on the other family's head at all times...but aren't such houses insulated for noise?

Thank you again for helping us!

[CaseyB]

Ok, the houses would probablly be older and not insulated for noise. I guess you have been looking at listings where there is one unit above another? There is also the side by side configuration (duplex), which seems like a nicer arrangement. When the units are sold separately, they are considered to be condos. That means you own from your walls in and the decisions on the exterior of the house are shared with the other owner (s). If you have good relations with the other owner, wonderful. But you see what I'm getting at...that would be my reservation.

As far as the schools, I think I would be comfortable sending my kids to any school system that ranked in the top 25% of the state's schools.

[mandh]

syracusa,
I have been following your thread about school district related questions.
We have also been very much thinking about all this. Actually just me- my husband does not think that small changes in ranking will effect our kids life that much. He thinks that if our kid (who BTW is still a baby ;-)) is smart she will do well. Although he agrees that we should buy in the town that will help us get a total package of good school, neighbors, restaurants, ect ect..also affordable houses. We do not plan on spending more than 450K. It just doesnt seem to make any sense to us just to go crazy over those school rankings. And believe me I want nothing but the best for our baby. But we will try to get that without getting too poor.

Have you considered other towns like Southborough, Westborough, Northborough, Shrewsbury?

Town like Harvard and Bolton have great school ranking but a bit more commute.

If you are willing to commute a bit you get good houses and friendly neighborhoods with great schools.
Where wll you be working - in Boston or nearby?