What I’m reading here suggests peer groups more than parents are influential to young school aged children. Depending on the field you hold in highest esteem you could probably find evidence for that. But, maybe there’s more to it? For example, 5-6 year olds (kindergarten age) do start to show some independence from their parents, and they do set higher priority on peers than earlier ages, but not to the extent an adolescent aged (9-13) kid will.
Then again, you might reject developmental psychology and rely on sociological studies of child rearing like Annette Lareau’s book, “Unequal Childhoods.” Lareau outlines two competing parenting styles based on parental income: natural growth and concerted cultivation.
Or, you can pass on both of those and read Critical X Theorists who complicate the narrative of both developmental psychology and sociology by providing studies based on narratives. For an accessible take check out Ijeoma Oluo’s work. For in-depth check out Gloria Ladson Billings.
The other point mentioned in this post is about “good” and “bad” schools intersecting with the geography of opportunity. What makes a school good? Well, since the late 90’s the main criterion for a good school has been high test scores (SAT’s or state proficiency scores, depending on the school). But test scores don’t tell you a whole lot about the school’s quality, even as a proxy measure (see Dan Koretz’s “Measuring Up.”) In that case, then, what makes a “good school” good and a “bad school“ bad? Relative income and race seem to be deciding factors (see Finnigan and Holme’s most recent book, or Rothstein’s book on redlining, or Nikole Hannah-Jones’ series on her own daughter’s education).
Long story short: it’s complicated and this article is about VAM, not parenting, school quality, or peer effects.
Edit: fixed spelling and punctuation