Our first days of public school after private, what I've noticed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:private: nice, easy carpool line
Public: find space and walk in

private: soft spoken people who say what you want to hear
public: people much more direct and honest about your child's progress

private: poor teaching in the elementary grades
public: excellent to good

private: crazy tuition
public: reasonable fee for aftercare and lunches

private: dumb rules about birhtdays, etc
public: free for all

privte: people judging you constantly
public: nobody cares about you (in a good way)

i vote for public for sure at least until grade 5, maybe til 8th. in high school i can see making a switch

Actually, I see public HS as the winner.
I am having trouble getting used to the rude teachers, just off putting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. DS had more complaints about mean teachers. That said, I do like the fact that I no longer have to drive to and from the school.

OP, I'm in the exact OPPOSITE situation...and my DC is saying the same/opposite thing...The teachers are nicer. I think what they're (both) really saying is that the teachers in public school are more stressed. This was an issue for us as DC became very anxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I noticed when I moved my kids from a private school to a public school:

1. Teachers and staff were uniformly supportive of my kids -- kind, gentle and understanding. They worked really hard to help my kids get where they were supposed to be and do what they were supposed to do. "Positive discipline" was the rule. That was very different from the private school, which expected kids to comply and when they didn't, there was a lot of exasperation.

2. The teachers were MUCH better trained. They had many tools in their tool box for teaching material to different kinds of kids. They had many different methods for ensuring that behavior was good.

3. We had more variety in extracurriculars and enrichment activities.

4. We had more diversity in race, ethnic background and SES.

5. We had more resources - the school has speech therapists, occupational therapists, nurses, psychologists -- to help us, if we need it.

6. The academic side was the same or better.

OP here. I agree with 2, 5, and 6.
We had more diversity at our private school, fewer academic resources. But we had nice teachers. The tuition of 35K was the deal breaker.

Just how do you define "diversity"? Rich white kids and rich "brown" kids? I can't imagine that there would be much economic diversity at a school that cost 35k.

Well rich white people and poor brown people is a toxic type of diversity.

Why do you think that "brown" kids in private school are poor? Or that white kids in private school are rich? BTW, at our private school, there were so many types of families that the diversity was much better than at Whitman.

Not the person you are quoting, but I assume that 95% of students at expensive private schools are upper middle class/rich. To me, that's not a particularly diverse environment.

You assume wrong. Most good independent schools have about 30% to 35% of the student population on financial aid. My child's independent school i smore diverse (SES and race) than his MCPS school was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You assume wrong. Most good independent schools have about 30% to 35% of the student population on financial aid. My child's independent school i smore diverse (SES and race) than his MCPS school was.

That says a lot about your child's particular MCPS public school; not much about public school in general.

[Anonymous]

Private to public.
Class sizes are larger, but no complaints from DC about that so far. Academic teachers good. Art and PE bad; big difference. Kids are more diverse and friendlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I noticed when I moved my kids from a private school to a public school:

1. Teachers and staff were uniformly supportive of my kids -- kind, gentle and understanding. They worked really hard to help my kids get where they were supposed to be and do what they were supposed to do. "Positive discipline" was the rule. That was very different from the private school, which expected kids to comply and when they didn't, there was a lot of exasperation.

2. The teachers were MUCH better trained. They had many tools in their tool box for teaching material to different kinds of kids. They had many different methods for ensuring that behavior was good.

3. We had more variety in extracurriculars and enrichment activities.

4. We had more diversity in race, ethnic background and SES.

5. We had more resources - the school has speech therapists, occupational therapists, nurses, psychologists -- to help us, if we need it.

6. The academic side was the same or better.

OP here. I agree with 2, 5, and 6.
We had more diversity at our private school, fewer academic resources. But we had nice teachers. The tuition of 35K was the deal breaker.

Just how do you define "diversity"? Rich white kids and rich "brown" kids? I can't imagine that there would be much economic diversity at a school that cost 35k.

Well rich white people and poor brown people is a toxic type of diversity.

Why do you think that "brown" kids in private school are poor? Or that white kids in private school are rich? BTW, at our private school, there were so many types of families that the diversity was much better than at Whitman.

Not the person you are quoting, but I assume that 95% of students at expensive private schools are upper middle class/rich. To me, that's not a particularly diverse environment.

You assume wrong. Most good independent schools have about 30% to 35% of the student population on financial aid. My child's independent school i smore diverse (SES and race) than his MCPS school was.

Exactly. This is why it's stupid to compare "publics" to "privates". Compare a particular private school to a particular public school and then you can get a meaningful comparison.

[Anonymous]

+1
Comparisons need to be school to school, class to class, and kid to kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1
Comparisons need to be school to school, class to class, and kid to kid.

But this is an anonymous forum. How many kids went from Holton to Pyle this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private to public.
Class sizes are larger, but no complaints from DC about that so far. Academic teachers good. Art and PE bad; big difference. Kids are more diverse and friendlier.

OP here. I agree that the academic teachers are much much better in public school. They seem to have a more realistic understanding of what kids can handle at a particular age. They know their subject matter better.

Totally agree about art, music and PE, complete waste. Almost want to tell the public schools to give a voucher for the parents to either hire someone good for the specials or get the activities after school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private to public.
Class sizes are larger, but no complaints from DC about that so far. Academic teachers good. Art and PE bad; big difference. Kids are more diverse and friendlier.

OP here. I agree that the academic teachers are much much better in public school. They seem to have a more realistic understanding of what kids can handle at a particular age. They know their subject matter better.

Totally agree about art, music and PE, complete waste. Almost want to tell the public schools to give a voucher for the parents to either hire someone good for the specials or get the activities after school.

It's a public school. Most kids will not become great artists, musicians, athletes. The point of the specials is to get them exposed to these things, not produce prodigies. So, these lessons will be pretty basic. Plus, it's like 45min once a week. How much do you think they will learn doing something once a week for 45min.? Yea, if you want your kid to have more exposure to these things, you're on your own. But a lot of parents don't have time for after school activities/lessons, so providing these specials, even if basic and not great, is better than nothing. A lot of schools around the country are getting rid of these specials due to budget constraints or focusing more on academics and testing.

I'm glad my DCs' public schools offer these. We came from a state where they were getting rid of these specials. I grew up with these things in my mediocre ES, and enjoyed them because my parents didn't have the time to take me to lessons, even if they got a voucher for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private to public.
Class sizes are larger, but no complaints from DC about that so far. Academic teachers good. Art and PE bad; big difference. Kids are more diverse and friendlier.

OP here. I agree that the academic teachers are much much better in public school. They seem to have a more realistic understanding of what kids can handle at a particular age. They know their subject matter better.

Totally agree about art, music and PE, complete waste. Almost want to tell the public schools to give a voucher for the parents to either hire someone good for the specials or get the activities after school.

It's a public school. Most kids will not become great artists, musicians, athletes. The point of the specials is to get them exposed to these things, not produce prodigies. So, these lessons will be pretty basic. Plus, it's like 45min once a week. How much do you think they will learn doing something once a week for 45min.? Yea, if you want your kid to have more exposure to these things, you're on your own. But a lot of parents don't have time for after school activities/lessons, so providing these specials, even if basic and not great, is better than nothing. A lot of schools around the country are getting rid of these specials due to budget constraints or focusing more on academics and testing.

I'm glad my DCs' public schools offer these. We came from a state where they were getting rid of these specials. I grew up with these things in my mediocre ES, and enjoyed them because my parents didn't have the time to take me to lessons, even if they got a voucher for it.

In middle school, it is daily. They could get better quality teachers. If the private schools can afford good PE teachers and music teachers, so can the public schools since they pay more and have better bennies. Equipment might be limited in the public schools though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In middle school, it is daily. They could get better quality teachers. If the private schools can afford good PE teachers and music teachers, so can the public schools since they pay more and have better bennies. Equipment might be limited in the public schools though.

How many middle-school art, music, and PE teachers do you have personal experience with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private to public.
Class sizes are larger, but no complaints from DC about that so far. Academic teachers good. Art and PE bad; big difference. Kids are more diverse and friendlier.

OP here. I agree that the academic teachers are much much better in public school. They seem to have a more realistic understanding of what kids can handle at a particular age. They know their subject matter better.

Totally agree about art, music and PE, complete waste. Almost want to tell the public schools to give a voucher for the parents to either hire someone good for the specials or get the activities after school.

OP you just started with public and only one school at that. How much experience can you possibly have with the special teachers?

[Anonymous]

I've been in private and public schools, I think there a good and bad and both. People who generalize over the two systems really don't know what they are talking about. Are you talking about one specific private and one specific public?

Way to over generalize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private to public.
Class sizes are larger, but no complaints from DC about that so far. Academic teachers good. Art and PE bad; big difference. Kids are more diverse and friendlier.

OP here. I agree that the academic teachers are much much better in public school. They seem to have a more realistic understanding of what kids can handle at a particular age. They know their subject matter better.

Totally agree about art, music and PE, complete waste. Almost want to tell the public schools to give a voucher for the parents to either hire someone good for the specials or get the activities after school.

It's a public school. Most kids will not become great artists, musicians, athletes. The point of the specials is to get them exposed to these things, not produce prodigies. So, these lessons will be pretty basic. Plus, it's like 45min once a week. How much do you think they will learn doing something once a week for 45min.? Yea, if you want your kid to have more exposure to these things, you're on your own. But a lot of parents don't have time for after school activities/lessons, so providing these specials, even if basic and not great, is better than nothing. A lot of schools around the country are getting rid of these specials due to budget constraints or focusing more on academics and testing.

I'm glad my DCs' public schools offer these. We came from a state where they were getting rid of these specials. I grew up with these things in my mediocre ES, and enjoyed them because my parents didn't have the time to take me to lessons, even if they got a voucher for it.

In middle school, it is daily. They could get better quality teachers. If the private schools can afford good PE teachers and music teachers, so can the public schools since they pay more and have better bennies. Equipment might be limited in the public schools though.

I don't know where you go to school...my middle schooler has band every day and PE every other day.