That doesn't pass the smell test all. Your school sent 10% of its students to elite colleges, that's clearly not common.

Not at all uncommon for upper-middle class school districts in the mid-West. Think "Chicago suburbs with $500k average houses." I went to one. Great school; fits same rough statistical profile.

Then you have e.g. Chicago Public Schools, which range from comparable at the very top end to "not particularly inspiring" to "attending this school is of comparable danger to being deployed to a war zone."

I'd say that is believable. There is a strong correlation between parental income and a child's SAT score. So you could probably get a rough estimate of a public high school's average SAT scores by looking at the average income in the surrounding areas. I was looking at a couple public high schools in California, and there some where it looks like the average senior is graduating with test scores close to the top 10%. I'd expect some schools have uncommon success placing seniors into elite colleges because they have a very talented student body.

To be fair, I'm including UMich in that list which was a state school with preferential admissions for in-state students.

It doesn't have to be common. You can move to whatever school district you want to (if you have the money for housing there) and get that same level of education. No one's forcing you to send your kids to sub-par public schools.

Surely you don't believe the average American can just up and move to places with great public schools?

I was privileged enough to grow up someplace that allowed me to go to a great public school. It's a great city by many measures, but poor in public transport, affordable housing, and working-class jobs.

The OP has the means to home-school, so can live off a single income.

The OP has the means to pay their children nearly double the national average income (calculated on an hourly basis).

So, yes, in this case, the OP more than likely does have the means to move.

Or, the OP also has the means to be actively involved in the local schools and try to make them less awful.

My negative opinions on home-schoolers are based mostly on personal experience with home-schoolers in my area. They generally fall into one of two categories: - fanatical Christians (public school is full of heathens and rapists etc) - fanatical libertarians (I got mine, so fuck you)

Someone who has the capacity to pass on $60/hr work to their 13-year-old children certainly can.

Well yes, if you're only option is to send them to a sub-par public school then the government is going to force you to send them to that school. If you don't have the means to move to a better neighborhood, if you don't have the means to pay for private school you have to deal with what you get.

Unfortunately, for many families that is simply not an option. They're stuck with the horrific local public school or a lottery-based charter.

It does have to be "common" if 'you' (as in the OP) is claiming that "many" schools are excellent, with implicitly comparable graduation rates and destinations.

That is a pretty big if.

Oh man.

You should try raising a family in Southern California. See what kind of school district you can afford to live in. See if you still believe that "you can move to whatever school district you want to."

Oy.

There are some excellent charter schools in many districts

That's great for you, but it is NOT typical and I suspect that many of the 100 best were private schools.

Nah, most were public, Michigan had good public schools in general. There were certainly bad public schools as well, but I'm just pointing out that many millions of kids go through excellent public schools and are better for it.

What point are you trying to make exactly? Or are you just inserting meaningless anecdotal pseudo-data?