Is Private School tuition a BARGIN?

[Anonymous]

The public schools are the bargain because the entire tax base is paying for each child's education, not just the parents of the children attending the schools.....that's how public goods work.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different cost bases. Public schools also have to take in special-needs children who require 1:1 staffing, and some of whom may cost (at margin) $100k per year each. If you statistically equate, public schools spend less per student and cost less per student.

Very, very true.

[Anonymous]

Also, public schools take in the kids who need ESOL, who enter kindergarten already behind on the alphabet, or whose parents have disengaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The public schools are the bargain because the entire tax base is paying for each child's education, not just the parents of the children attending the schools.....that's how public goods work.....

Exactly!
The question is a false choice because you have to ADD the cost of public school to the cost of private school.
You are paying for Public School even if you don't send your children there, or even have children for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different cost bases. Public schools also have to take in special-needs children who require 1:1 staffing, and some of whom may cost (at margin) $100k per year each. If you statistically equate, public schools spend less per student and cost less per student.

Many private schools have special needs children.

Other than special needs privates, which generally have even higher tuition, charge extra for therapies, and don't have a lot of bells and whistles, private schools accept a small segment of children with special needs, those who can be educated at the least costs in terms of teacher development, enhanced staffing, specialized curriculum etc . . . If there are additional costs, they are generally passed on to parents. If a child in a private school, general or special ed, needs 1:1 or small group instruction, speech therapy, and augmentative communication device, etc . . . those costs are generally not absorbed by the school.

I've worked in both private and public schools, and the two set out to do two different tasks. Private schools takes a group of kids who are already moving well along a predictable path, and partners with the parents to guide and nurture them along the way. Public takes whoever comes, and takes responsibility for the whole task of educating the children, including children with disabilities, who may not speak English, who are suffering the results of trauma etc . . . Private may have a higher success rate, but they have a much much easier task to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real question is whether the privates could do as well or better, using the same funds and their current approach to education, with the same pool of students.

As a big supporter of private education, I would like to think so, but it has never been tried. And I admit fully that the key to private schools success likely lie with whom they admit. The sort of parents who choses private school rear the sort of child who will do better in any circumstance: the parent who values education (or at least 'achievement') and is proactive in their parenting.

I get so tired of this view that some people "value" education. Some parents may have more time and resources available to support their children's education. They may have more skills for doing so. But parents across the economic spectrum value their children's education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is whether the privates could do as well or better, using the same funds and their current approach to education, with the same pool of students.

As a big supporter of private education, I would like to think so, but it has never been tried. And I admit fully that the key to private schools success likely lie with whom they admit. The sort of parents who choses private school rear the sort of child who will do better in any circumstance: the parent who values education (or at least 'achievement') and is proactive in their parenting.

I get so tired of this view that some people "value" education. Some parents may have more time and resources available to support their children's education. They may have more skills for doing so. But parents across the economic spectrum value their children's education.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public schools are the bargain because the entire tax base is paying for each child's education, not just the parents of the children attending the schools.....that's how public goods work.....

Exactly!
The question is a false choice because you have to ADD the cost of public school to the cost of private school.
You are paying for Public School even if you don't send your children there, or even have children for that matter.

No. It's a false choice because the schools serve two very different markets. In private schools you have middle- and upper-middle class families whose kids, studies show, enter kindergarten ahead, and have higher expectations and test scores. Public schools serve a very diverse market of kids at all levels of preparedness, learning disabilities, english skills, and career goals.

Honestly, you can't see this?

[Anonymous]

Private schools are a bargain for those who are lucky enough to get in. Public schools are never a bargain for the average student, but often are a bargain for those that aren't near in the middle of the bell curve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is whether the privates could do as well or better, using the same funds and their current approach to education, with the same pool of students.

As a big supporter of private education, I would like to think so, but it has never been tried. And I admit fully that the key to private schools success likely lie with whom they admit. The sort of parents who choses private school rear the sort of child who will do better in any circumstance: the parent who values education (or at least 'achievement') and is proactive in their parenting.

I get so tired of this view that some people "value" education. Some parents may have more time and resources available to support their children's education. They may have more skills for doing so. But parents across the economic spectrum value their children's education.

+1.

Where did I imply that valuing education was determined by economic status?

My point is that we don't know if private schools would do a better job educating kids with relatively neglectful or less educationally-mindful parents, because in no case have the kids of those parents been placed in private school in significant numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public schools are the bargain because the entire tax base is paying for each child's education, not just the parents of the children attending the schools.....that's how public goods work.....

Exactly!
The question is a false choice because you have to ADD the cost of public school to the cost of private school.
You are paying for Public School even if you don't send your children there, or even have children for that matter.

No. It's a false choice because the schools serve two very different markets. In private schools you have middle- and upper-middle class families whose kids, studies show, enter kindergarten ahead, and have higher expectations and test scores. Public schools serve a very diverse market of kids at all levels of preparedness, learning disabilities, english skills, and career goals.

Honestly, you can't see this?

Not sure what you are all up in arms about here?

From a purely economic sense - No matter who you are: (1) the cost to a parent sending their child to private school is the portion of your tax dollars that get funneled into public schools PLUS the cost of your private school AND (2) the cost to a parent sending their child to public school is NOWHERE NEAR what it costs the public school system to serve that child.....that parent's tax dollars are pooled with many many many other tax payers who don't have children! I don't care if your child is the lowest need child in the class - I highly doubt your personal tax contribution alone is covering the cost of your kid....

Also from an economic sense - I do agree that the "average" cost per student is not a relevant comparison to use across public and private schools (or even across one public school to another) because the the public schools are likely to have a more diverse population - some students with very high costs compared to others...but this goes even within public school systems. Some parts of a county may have more ESOL kids, while another has more middle of the road and another may have a bunch of high flyers...

But in terms of PAYING out - you are never paying what it really costs (the marginal cost) for the public school to take your child and unless you know of some great tax credit available for families who choose not to use the public schools...you are always paying for both public and private when going to private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public schools are the bargain because the entire tax base is paying for each child's education, not just the parents of the children attending the schools.....that's how public goods work.....

Exactly!
The question is a false choice because you have to ADD the cost of public school to the cost of private school.
You are paying for Public School even if you don't send your children there, or even have children for that matter.

No. It's a false choice because the schools serve two very different markets. In private schools you have middle- and upper-middle class families whose kids, studies show, enter kindergarten ahead, and have higher expectations and test scores. Public schools serve a very diverse market of kids at all levels of preparedness, learning disabilities, english skills, and career goals.

Honestly, you can't see this?

Not sure what you are all up in arms about here?

From a purely economic sense - No matter who you are: (1) the cost to a parent sending their child to private school is the portion of your tax dollars that get funneled into public schools PLUS the cost of your private school AND (2) the cost to a parent sending their child to public school is NOWHERE NEAR what it costs the public school system to serve that child.....that parent's tax dollars are pooled with many many many other tax payers who don't have children! I don't care if your child is the lowest need child in the class - I highly doubt your personal tax contribution alone is covering the cost of your kid....

Also from an economic sense - I do agree that the "average" cost per student is not a relevant comparison to use across public and private schools (or even across one public school to another) because the the public schools are likely to have a more diverse population - some students with very high costs compared to others...but this goes even within public school systems. Some parts of a county may have more ESOL kids, while another has more middle of the road and another may have a bunch of high flyers...

But in terms of PAYING out - you are never paying what it really costs (the marginal cost) for the public school to take your child and unless you know of some great tax credit available for families who choose not to use the public schools...you are always paying for both public and private when going to private school.

I'm an economist and marginal cost is not what you think it is, but it doesn't really matter. OP's point was not the total pricetag (cost) faced by you, or me, or anyone else after combining our tax dollars with any private school tuition payments. OP's point was about total EXPENDITURES per kid. That is, how many dollars a school SPENDS on each kid. OP needs to talk about expenditures not costs, so that s/he can draw (half-baked) conclusions about the "value" of dollars spent per kid in public vs. private systems.

So, OP cites studies that DC public schools spend anywhere from $18K to $30K in total costs per kid. OP compares this favorably to tuition at Gonzaga, Sidwell and STA. In fact, there have been articles recently saying that it costs $40-50K to educate a single kid, which is more than the $35K tuition and is made up by the annual fund, auction, endowment, et cetera. But let's not get bogged down in that.

OP's larger question is whether these dollars-per-kid expenditures are "providing value", i.e. whether the money is being used efficiently. OP reaches this doozy of a conclusion: "The purpose of the public schools, on the other hand, has become to provide profitable employment and extraordinary benefits for the unionized public school teachers." Where OP goes wrong, obviously, is that private and public schools are educating two very different populations with very different needs (getting into Ivies vs. learning English).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The purpose of the public schools, on the other hand, has become to provide profitable employment and extraordinary benefits for the unionized public school teachers.

South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia do not have teachers' unions. I wonder what the purpose of public schools is in those states.

[Anonymous]

Which is the better bargain: paying tuition at a private school, or paying tuition to go to a public school at a neighboring district? I would guess, maybe, that if paying tuition at a public school was such a bargain, lots more people would do that instead of sending their student to a private school. You never hear about huge waiting lists at the public schools, as far as I now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which is the better bargain: paying tuition at a private school, or paying tuition to go to a public school at a neighboring district? I would guess, maybe, that if paying tuition at a public school was such a bargain, lots more people would do that instead of sending their student to a private school. You never hear about huge waiting lists at the public schools, as far as I now.

Public schools don't do waiting lists. Instead, people pay big bucks to buy houses in desirable school districts. The price phenomenon you're wondering about can be seen in the $100,000 or $200,000 spread between prices for similar houses in Bethesda or Potomac vs. a bad school district.

God, some right-wingers are stupid.