UVA study - private vs. public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think there is a tipping point at which having too many low income students may become a disadvantage to that MC/UMC child in the form of low income students needing more attention from faculty/staff to possibly not having a big enough academic peer group.

IMO, that tipping point is anything above 25 to 30%. Others may feel differently. I also think some SES diversity is a good thing, however, not from an education perspective, but just from a exposure to diversity perspective.

A good thing, for whom? The major argument against high-poverty schools is that high-poverty schools are bad for children who live in poverty. Income diversity most benefits children who live in poverty. Is that the perspective you're talking about? Or are you saying that you think it's good for children from affluent families to be exposed to children who live in poverty?

I think there are a lot of affluent or UMC parents who would prefer that their children learn to acknowledge and appreciate the privileges they have rather than measuring themselves against people with vacation homes in Europe and trips abroad every summer. My parents are both UMC professionals, as were my aunts and uncles. My cousins who went to private school (not in the DC area) felt like the poor kids at their school, despite ample opportunities, because they went to school with kids with private jets and multiple homes, etc. My brother and I had different experiences at two different MoCo high schools. My brother was invited to ski trips out of state by the families of some of his friends (and my parents were able to send him). My friends' families did not take trips like that, though none were by any means poor. What kind of expectations and assumptions kids grow up with are influenced not only by their own family, but by the kids and families they grow up with and around.

THIS. My DH and his sisters went to privates. They were the poor kids, comparatively. This is anecdotal of course, but their whole life they have measured themselves against people who are fair and beyond more wealthy. It set up a really awful dynamic. When they do not measure to that 'level' of affluence, it's like they failed, rather than acknowledging and appreciating their hard work led to them being more well-off and in a better place that the vast majority of the US (let alone the world). Not to say every private kid is entitled, or every public kid is not, but seeing and experiencing a broad range of SES makes one appreciate their station in life.

[Anonymous]

A few thoughts:

1. This is probably true when comparing how an UMC kid does in a decent public school versus a decent private school, but when you’re looking at significant deficiencies (like we are with MCPS K-8 right now), a decent alternative makes a bigger difference.

2. Public schools in affluent areas can be just as cloistered and difficult for kids who don’t fit a certain mold as private schools. I can personally attest to that, having grown up going to public schools in Northern Westchester County in NY. The private HS I went to was significantly more diverse.

At the end of the day, no study is going to prescribe what works for a given kid. For some kids, public school is great; for others it’s a disaster. Same thing for private schools. At the end of the day you have to do what’s best for your kid and your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts:

1. This is probably true when comparing how an UMC kid does in a decent public school versus a decent private school, but when you’re looking at significant deficiencies (like we are with MCPS K-8 right now), a decent alternative makes a bigger difference.

2. Public schools in affluent areas can be just as cloistered and difficult for kids who don’t fit a certain mold as private schools. I can personally attest to that, having grown up going to public schools in Northern Westchester County in NY. The private HS I went to was significantly more diverse.

At the end of the day, no study is going to prescribe what works for a given kid. For some kids, public school is great; for others it’s a disaster. Same thing for private schools. At the end of the day you have to do what’s best for your kid and your family.

Can we have some perspective here, please? The JHU report found that Curriculum 2.0 has problems and that better curricula are available. The JHU report did not find that Curriculum 2.0 is a terrible horrible no good very bad curriculum, and you'd be better off putting your child in the Hominy, Oklahoma, public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think there is a tipping point at which having too many low income students may become a disadvantage to that MC/UMC child in the form of low income students needing more attention from faculty/staff to possibly not having a big enough academic peer group.

IMO, that tipping point is anything above 25 to 30%. Others may feel differently. I also think some SES diversity is a good thing, however, not from an education perspective, but just from a exposure to diversity perspective.

A good thing, for whom? The major argument against high-poverty schools is that high-poverty schools are bad for children who live in poverty. Income diversity most benefits children who live in poverty. Is that the perspective you're talking about? Or are you saying that you think it's good for children from affluent families to be exposed to children who live in poverty?

I think there are a lot of affluent or UMC parents who would prefer that their children learn to acknowledge and appreciate the privileges they have rather than measuring themselves against people with vacation homes in Europe and trips abroad every summer. My parents are both UMC professionals, as were my aunts and uncles. My cousins who went to private school (not in the DC area) felt like the poor kids at their school, despite ample opportunities, because they went to school with kids with private jets and multiple homes, etc. My brother and I had different experiences at two different MoCo high schools. My brother was invited to ski trips out of state by the families of some of his friends (and my parents were able to send him). My friends' families did not take trips like that, though none were by any means poor. What kind of expectations and assumptions kids grow up with are influenced not only by their own family, but by the kids and families they grow up with and around.

THIS. My DH and his sisters went to privates. They were the poor kids, comparatively. This is anecdotal of course, but their whole life they have measured themselves against people who are fair and beyond more wealthy. It set up a really awful dynamic. When they do not measure to that 'level' of affluence, it's like they failed, rather than acknowledging and appreciating their hard work led to them being more well-off and in a better place that the vast majority of the US (let alone the world). Not to say every private kid is entitled, or every public kid is not, but seeing and experiencing a broad range of SES makes one appreciate their station in life.

Meh. Not really a public vs. private thing. My husband was the “poor” kid at his public high school (New Trier outside of Chicago) and hated every second of it. Similar to what you describe. I went to a Catholic high school in an industrial midwestern town and we had everyone from the mill workers kids whose parents scrimped and saved to send their kids there to the wealthy doctors and business owners of the town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts:

1. This is probably true when comparing how an UMC kid does in a decent public school versus a decent private school, but when you’re looking at significant deficiencies (like we are with MCPS K-8 right now), a decent alternative makes a bigger difference.

2. Public schools in affluent areas can be just as cloistered and difficult for kids who don’t fit a certain mold as private schools. I can personally attest to that, having grown up going to public schools in Northern Westchester County in NY. The private HS I went to was significantly more diverse.

At the end of the day, no study is going to prescribe what works for a given kid. For some kids, public school is great; for others it’s a disaster. Same thing for private schools. At the end of the day you have to do what’s best for your kid and your family.

Can we have some perspective here, please? The JHU report found that Curriculum 2.0 has problems and that better curricula are available. The JHU report did not find that Curriculum 2.0 is a terrible horrible no good very bad curriculum, and you'd be better off putting your child in the Hominy, Oklahoma, public schools.

Thank-you!

[Anonymous]

Yes, it's the students that make schools good/bad. Of course, if you mention that in a thread about the public schools in MCPS all hell breaks loose.

[Anonymous]

Now, for the sake of the parents here, UVA should follow up with a study about whether public or private helps one’s chances of being admitted to ...UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think there is a tipping point at which having too many low income students may become a disadvantage to that MC/UMC child in the form of low income students needing more attention from faculty/staff to possibly not having a big enough academic peer group.

IMO, that tipping point is anything above 25 to 30%. Others may feel differently. I also think some SES diversity is a good thing, however, not from an education perspective, but just from a exposure to diversity perspective.

A good thing, for whom? The major argument against high-poverty schools is that high-poverty schools are bad for children who live in poverty. Income diversity most benefits children who live in poverty. Is that the perspective you're talking about? Or are you saying that you think it's good for children from affluent families to be exposed to children who live in poverty?

a good thing for everyone. We are MC/UMC and chose a more diverse school cluster for the diversity, and not just for race but for SES as well.

+10000

Why wouldn’t SES diversity be good for everyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts:

1. This is probably true when comparing how an UMC kid does in a decent public school versus a decent private school, but when you’re looking at significant deficiencies (like we are with MCPS K-8 right now), a decent alternative makes a bigger difference.

2. Public schools in affluent areas can be just as cloistered and difficult for kids who don’t fit a certain mold as private schools. I can personally attest to that, having grown up going to public schools in Northern Westchester County in NY. The private HS I went to was significantly more diverse.

At the end of the day, no study is going to prescribe what works for a given kid. For some kids, public school is great; for others it’s a disaster. Same thing for private schools. At the end of the day you have to do what’s best for your kid and your family.

Can we have some perspective here, please? The JHU report found that Curriculum 2.0 has problems and that better curricula are available. The JHU report did not find that Curriculum 2.0 is a terrible horrible no good very bad curriculum, and you'd be better off putting your child in the Hominy, Oklahoma, public schools.

Thank-you!

Did I say it was terrible and horrible? No. But clearly there are problems, which make going to a private school likely more beneficial than if those curricular problems didn’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did I say it was terrible and horrible? No. But clearly there are problems, which make going to a private school likely more beneficial than if those curricular problems didn’t exist.

All things being equal, which they aren't. Unless you think that all private schools, but only some public schools (not including MCPS), have good curricula?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inflammatory would be posting it in the private school forum.

That's why I thought there would be a more dispassionate audience here : )

This issue also I think impacts public school choice. In other words, whether or not (and there are arguments on both sides) or the extent to which a kid from a MC/UMC family can have the same opportunities/success at a school where there are challenges not faced to the same degree as other schools (e.g., hunger, resources, English literacy), significant socioeconomic diversity, and so on, due to parental involvement or supplementing. I personally struggle with this as a parent. I know it's been debated ad nauseum here.

I think there is a tipping point at which having too many low income students may become a disadvantage to that MC/UMC child in the form of low income students needing more attention from faculty/staff to possibly not having a big enough academic peer group.

IMO, that tipping point is anything above 25 to 30%. Others may feel differently. I also think some SES diversity is a good thing, however, not from an education perspective, but just from a exposure to diversity perspective.

You are assuming there is only one tipping point and not degrees of degradation. Some might argue 1 bad apple spoils the batch and poor kids have a higher rate of bad apples. I would agree there is a point where everybody is highly impacted but nuance impacts start immediately.

I just don’t know why when no one likes freeloaders as friends, coworkers, neighbors, family or partners we somehow have convinced ourselves that they are a value-add in our children’s school. I get the conundrum that they have to be educated but let’s not kid our selves that they do anything but add weight to the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think there is a tipping point at which having too many low income students may become a disadvantage to that MC/UMC child in the form of low income students needing more attention from faculty/staff to possibly not having a big enough academic peer group.

IMO, that tipping point is anything above 25 to 30%. Others may feel differently. I also think some SES diversity is a good thing, however, not from an education perspective, but just from a exposure to diversity perspective.

A good thing, for whom? The major argument against high-poverty schools is that high-poverty schools are bad for children who live in poverty. Income diversity most benefits children who live in poverty. Is that the perspective you're talking about? Or are you saying that you think it's good for children from affluent families to be exposed to children who live in poverty?

a good thing for everyone. We are MC/UMC and chose a more diverse school cluster for the diversity, and not just for race but for SES as well.

+10000

Why wouldn’t SES diversity be good for everyone?

Same reason people don’t like too many random people showing up to their parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think there is a tipping point at which having too many low income students may become a disadvantage to that MC/UMC child in the form of low income students needing more attention from faculty/staff to possibly not having a big enough academic peer group.

IMO, that tipping point is anything above 25 to 30%. Others may feel differently. I also think some SES diversity is a good thing, however, not from an education perspective, but just from a exposure to diversity perspective.

A good thing, for whom? The major argument against high-poverty schools is that high-poverty schools are bad for children who live in poverty. Income diversity most benefits children who live in poverty. Is that the perspective you're talking about? Or are you saying that you think it's good for children from affluent families to be exposed to children who live in poverty?

a good thing for everyone. We are MC/UMC and chose a more diverse school cluster for the diversity, and not just for race but for SES as well.

+10000

Why wouldn’t SES diversity be good for everyone?

Same reason people don’t like too many random people showing up to their parties.

How so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming there is only one tipping point and not degrees of degradation. Some might argue 1 bad apple spoils the batch and poor kids have a higher rate of bad apples. I would agree there is a point where everybody is highly impacted but nuance impacts start immediately.

I just don’t know why when no one likes freeloaders as friends, coworkers, neighbors, family or partners we somehow have convinced ourselves that they are a value-add in our children’s school. I get the conundrum that they have to be educated but let’s not kid our selves that they do anything but add weight to the system.

Speaking of bad apples...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inflammatory would be posting it in the private school forum.

That's why I thought there would be a more dispassionate audience here : )

This issue also I think impacts public school choice. In other words, whether or not (and there are arguments on both sides) or the extent to which a kid from a MC/UMC family can have the same opportunities/success at a school where there are challenges not faced to the same degree as other schools (e.g., hunger, resources, English literacy), significant socioeconomic diversity, and so on, due to parental involvement or supplementing. I personally struggle with this as a parent. I know it's been debated ad nauseum here.

I think there is a tipping point at which having too many low income students may become a disadvantage to that MC/UMC child in the form of low income students needing more attention from faculty/staff to possibly not having a big enough academic peer group.

IMO, that tipping point is anything above 25 to 30%. Others may feel differently. I also think some SES diversity is a good thing, however, not from an education perspective, but just from a exposure to diversity perspective.

You are assuming there is only one tipping point and not degrees of degradation. Some might argue 1 bad apple spoils the batch and poor kids have a higher rate of bad apples. I would agree there is a point where everybody is highly impacted but nuance impacts start immediately.

I just don’t know why when no one likes freeloaders as friends, coworkers, neighbors, family or partners we somehow have convinced ourselves that they are a value-add in our children’s school. I get the conundrum that they have to be educated but let’s not kid our selves that they do anything but add weight to the system.

? So you only want public schools to be for the well off? Or you are saying private is better because then no kids are mooching off of you?

I don't expect children of any class to add value to a school. All children are valuable, and all children should be educated, and the US government agrees with that. That's why it's called public school, ie, funded by taxpayers. I guess if you don't like that then certainly go private, but your property taxes are still paying for those poor kids' public school.